Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Resolution 846 - Rezone 3428 &3470 chicory Lane
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 846 A RESOLUTION FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECONINIENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE REZONING OF 3428 AND 3470 CHICORY LANE FROM TOD-MM]P./R-3 TO TOD-LMR/R-2 Applicants Bob Fellows Construction, LLC; Agent. CSA Planning, Ltd. (37S 2W I IC, Tax Lots 8300 & 8400) File No. ZC-17001 WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Pian Land Use Map designates 3428 and 3470 Chicory Lane as TOD Corridor; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zone Map amendment from TOD-MMR/R-3 to TOD-LMR/R-2 zoning designation on property located at 3428 and 3470 Chicory Lane constitutes a minor amendment per CPMC 17.10.300(B); and, WHEREAS, on September 5, 2017, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Central Point Planning Commission considered the Application, at which time it reviewed the Staff Report and heard testimony and comments on the minor Zone Change Application; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's consideration of the application is based on the standards and criteria applicable to Minor Zone Map Amendments per Section 17.10.400, and the findings of fact and conclusions of law incorporated herein (Exhibit "A"); and, WHEREAS, As evidenced in the fmdings of fact and conclusions of law (Exhibit "A"), the proposed zone map amendment is consistent with applicable standards and criteria in the Central Point Municipal Code, including the statewide Planning Goals (where applicable), the Comprehensive Plan, and Statewide Transportation Planning Rule. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by this Resolution No. 846, does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the Zone Change from TOD-MMR/R-3 to TOD-LMR/R-2. This decision is based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth in Exhibit "A", and attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 5th day of September, 2017. Planning Commission Chair ATT}l City representative Approved this day of September, 2017. Planning Commission Resolution No. 846 Planning Commission Chair 226 City of Central Point, Oregon 140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 541.564.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 www.centraiDointorezon.gov CENTRAL POINT S'T'AFF REPORT September 5, 2017 Community Development Tom Humphrey, AICD Community Development Director AGENDA I'TENI; File No. CPA -17002 Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Clarification for two (2) parcels totaling 3.64 acres at 3428 and 3470 Chicory Lane, from Jackson County land use designation Industrial to Central Point land use designation Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Corridor, and identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 11C, Tax Lots 8300 & 8400 ("Property"). Applicant; Bob Fellows Construction, LLC. Agent: CSA Planning, Ltd. STAFF SOURCE; Molly Bradley, Community Planner I BACKGROUND The Applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan (Map) amendment/clarification in preparation for a subsequent zone change application for the above referenced Property (File No. ZC-17001). The Applicant has also filed an application for annexation of the Property (File No. ANNEX -17001). The Property is currently outside of City Limits but inside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and its Comprehensive Plan designation when annexed to the City is TOD-Corridor (Attachment "A"). In accordance with the City/County Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA) (Attachment "B"), the Property retains its County land use and zoning designations until annexation into the City, which are Industrial and General Industrial (GI), respectively (Attachment "C"). Upon annexation, the Property will be subject to the TOD-Corridor land use classification. For purposes of this report it will be assumed that the Property has been annexed and the City's TOD-Corridor land use classification applies. In Ordinance No. IS 15 adopting the TOD-Corridor, Table 2 of Exhibit "A" identifies the land uses allowed in the TOD-Corridor. Existing conventional zoning designations remain in the TOD Corridor as underlying zones, and TOD designations represent optional standards that could be applied to development at the property owner's discretion. As illustrated in Table 2, the TOD Corridor allows a broad range of land uses, including medium density and multi -family residential, commercial and Industrial uses. The determination of land use was established based on the underlying conventional zoning designations. The Property is currently zoned TOD-MMR with an underlying zone of R-3, which is consistent with Table 2. -- —_� _ _ Land Use Snmma!l-TOD Cbt Existing Comprehenshe Plan Optional TOD Corr{dor Comprehensive Ross -and Zonlnp Dey natiousw -�� �-,�y and Zoning Desil"Stions Residential R-1-8 - Residential, Single Family District $,000 . ft. min. lot Size) TOD-MMR— Medium -Mix Residential R-2 — Residential, Two Family District 6,000 s . ft. min. tot size TOD-WR— N(edium Mix Residential R-3 — Residential, Multiple Family District TOD-NINIR — 1 (6,(300 su. ft. min. lot size) � Medium -Mix Residential 228 Commer_efal_ C-2 —Commercial -Professional Y ~ TOD-HMR—Hi -Mix Residential— C-3 — Downtown Business District TOD-EC — EmployMeat Commercial C-4 — Tourist and Office Professional District TOD-EC — Employment Commercial C-5 — Thorou fare Commercial District TOB -GC — General Commercial Industrial M-1 — Industrial District TOD-GC — General Commercial M-2 —Industrial General District TOD-GC —General Commercial The Applicant is requesting that the Property maintain the land use designation of TOD Corridor when it is annexed, but apply a different zoning district than what is currently planned. To ensure that the proper procedures are followed, the Applicant submitted an application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to clarify that the subsequent zone change is acceptable under the land use designations. The Applicant is requesting a zone change from TOD-ACY[R/R-3 to TOD-LMR/R-2, which is consistent with the allowed uses within the TOD-Corridor, per Table 2. The Applicant has submitted a set of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps and Findings of Fact (Attachment "D") along with relevant approval criteria for the City's consideration. It is recommended that the Commission disregard the Applicant's findings for the Land Use Plan Map amendment, and instead find that the TOD-Corridor land use designation is sufficiently clear in its scope of allowed uses to support the Applicant's proposed zone change. ISSUES & NOTES: There are no issues with this application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment. f CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Although a recommendation for a decision to approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment may include conditions, staff has not identified the need to impose any conditions at this time. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" — Existing Comprehensive Plan Map and Proposed Zoning Map Attachment "B" — Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA) Attachment "C" — Jackson County Comprehensive Plan Map Attachment "D" — Applicant's Findings of Fact, May 5, 2017 Attachment "E"— Applicant's Supplemental Findings, July 6, 2017 Attachment "F" — Traffic Findings, S.O. Transportation Engineering, LLC, July 10, 2017 Attachment "G" — Resolution No. 845 ACTION: Open public hearing and consider the proposed amendment/clarification to the Comprehensive Plan, close the public hearing and 1) recommend approval to the City Council; 2) recommend approval with revisions; or 3) deny the application. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of Resolution No. 845 to the City Council per the Staff Report dated September 5, 2017, and supported by Findings of Fact. 229 EXHIBIT 4 Subject Lots I Tax Lots IL-1 City Limits 1111111101uLUrban Growth wiurCtoundary — Railroad City COMP Pian -Neighborhood Convenience Center TOD Corridor - High Density Res. Low Density Res, CIVIC -Parks and Open Space Existing Comprehensive Plan Annexation / Zone Change " Bob Fellows Construction, LLC W+E 37-2W-11 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 0 400 200 0 400 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. 230 ma Subject Lots Tax Lots +—«- Railroad County Zoning 231 EXHIBIT 6 ATTACHMENT "B" AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON (CITY) AND JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON (COUNTY) FOR THE JOINT MANAGEMENT OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY WHEREAS, under ORS 190.003 to 190.030, and 197.175, et seq. City and County are authorized to enter into intergovernmental agreements and are required to prepare and adopt Comprehensive Plans consistent with Statewide Planning Goals; and WHEREAS, under ORS 197 - State Land Use Goal 14, Urbanization, the "Establishment and change of the boundary shall be a cooperative process between a city and the county or counties that surround it'; and WHEREAS, City and County have adopted a Regional Plan which necessitates revisions to the previous agreement; and WHEREAS, City and County recognize the importance of providing an orderly transition of urban services from County to City jurisdiction and administration as the Urban Reserve transitions from a rural to as urban character; and WHEREAS, ORS 190.003, et seq. requires that an intergovernmental agreement relating to the performance of functions or activities by one unit of local government for another shall be adopted and shall specify the responsibilities between the parties; NOW, Ti-IEREFOR.E, the City and County adopt the following urban growth policies which shall serve as the basis for decisions pertaining to development and land uses in the area between the City limits of Central Point and its urban -growth boundary, and other lands that are of mutual interest or are of significant importance to Central Point's long-range growth and development. DEFINITIONS Area of Mutual Planning Concern: A geographical area lying beyond the adopted urban growth boundary in which the City and County have an interest in terms of that area's types and levels of development, land uses, environment, agriculture, and other unique characteristics. The area is not subject to annexation within the current planning period but may be in the path of longer -range urban growth. Therefore, the City and County will fully coordinate land use activity within this area. 2. BOC: Jackson County Board of Commissioners, 3. Comprehensive Plan: State -acknowledged comprehensive plan adopted by City or County. 232 4. Contract Annexation: A process whereby the City, County, and other involved parties enter into a contract that permits: A) The parties to administer urban land use regulations on the development of property following an annexation decision while the property remains under County jurisdiction; and B) The City to annex property developed to City densities and uses, with the improvement to appear on the County tax rolls prior to the effective date of annexation, resulting in a greater benefit to the tax base of the community. 5. Council: City of Central Point City Council 6. De" velon: To bring about growth or create new opportunities for growth; to cause the expansion of available lands; to extend public facilities or services; to construct, alter or expand a structure; to conduct a mining operation; to make a change in the use of appearance of land; to divide land into smaller parcels; to Create or terminate rights of access, etc. 7. LDO: Jackson County's Land Development Ordinance. S. Mon -Resource Land: Land that is not subject to the statewide Goals listed in OAR 660-004-0010(1)(a) through (g) except subsections (c) and (d). 9. Planning Services: Legislative activities, such as adoption and amendment of comprehensive plan text and maps, adoption and amendment of land use regulations, and quasi-judicial processing of land use actions. 10. Resource Land: Land that is subject to the statewide Goals listed in OAR 660- 004-0010(1)(a) through (g) except subsections (c) and (d). 11. Subdivide or Partition Land: The act of dividing the legal ownership of land into smaller units, as set forth in Oregon Revised Statutes 92.010. 12. Urban/Public Facilities and Services: Basic facilities that are planned for and provided by either the private or public sector, and are essential to the support of development in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Such facilities and services include, but are not limited to, police and fire protection, sanitary facilities, public water and storm drain facilities; planning, zoning, and subdivision controls; health services; recreation facilities and services; energy and communication services; and community governmental services including schools and transportation. 13. Urban Growth Boundary: A site specific line on the Official Plan and Zoning Map of Jackson County, which identifies and encompasses urban and urbanizable lands within the County, including: 2 233 A) URBAN LAND: Residential areas generally comprised of parcels smaller than one acre, or highly developed conunercial and industrial areas which are within incorporated cities or which contain concentrations of persons who reside or work in the areas, including land adjacent to and outside cities, and which have supporting urban public facilities and services. B] URBANiZABLE LAND: Areas within an officially adopted urban growth boundary which are needed for the expansion of that urban area, and which have been determined to be necessary and suitable for development as future urban land and which can be served with necessary urban public facilities and services. 14. Urban Reserve Areas (URA): Land outside of a UGB identified as highest priority (per ORS 197.298) for inclusion in the UGB when additional urbanizable land is needed in accordance with the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 14. INTENT AND PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT The intent and purpose of this Agreement is for City and County to: 1. Enhance long-range planning in the Urban Growth Boundary and the Urban Reserve. 2. Maintain and improve coordination and communication between City and County. 3. Develop consistent policies and procedures for tnana&g urban growth and development within the Urban Growth Boundary. 4. Minimize impacts to property owners, local governments and service providers related to the transition of property from within the Urban Growth Boundary to within the City Limits. URBAN GROWTH POLICIES The City of Central Point shall have primary responsibility for all future urban level development that takes place within the City and urban growth boundary area. Additionally: A) All urban level development shall conform to City standards, shall be consistent with the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, and shall meet all appropriate requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance and Map. 234 B) The term "urban level development" shall be generally defined, for purposes of this agreement, as any commercial or industrial development, and any residential development, partitioning, or subdivision that creates actual or potential densities greater than allowed by the City's Residential Low-density District (R -L). The expansion or major alteration of legally existing commercial or industrial use shall also be considered urban level development. C) Urban level development proposals submitted through County processes must be accompanied by a contract to annex to the City. 2. A change in the use of urbanizable land from a use designated on the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Map to uses shown on the City Comprehensive Plan shall occur only upon annexation or contractual intent to annex to the City. Additionally: A) Development of land for uses designated in the Comprehensive Plan shall be encouraged on vacant or underdeveloped lands adjacent to or within the City limits prior to the conversion of other lands within the urban growth boundary. B) Urban facilities and services must be adequate in condition and capacity to acl:U1[t--ate the addilioual level of giuwth, as allowed by the Comprehensive Plan, prior to or concurrent with the land use changes. C) The City may initiate annexation and zone changes of lands outside the City limits and within the UOB that are under a County "Exclusive Farm Use" designation or otherwise enjoying farm -related tax incentives when such lands are needed for urban development. 3. City annexation shall only occur within the framework of the City's Comprehensive Plan and within the Urban Growth Boundary. 4. Except as provided in Policy 11 of this agreement, specific annexation decisions shall be governed by the City of Central Point. The City will provide opportunities for the County and all affected agencies to respond to pending requests for annexation with the response time limited to sixty days to minimize any unnecessary and costly delay in processing. 5. The establishment of the Urban Growth Boundary does not imply that all lands within the Boundary must be annexed to the City. Jackson County shall retain jurisdiction over any land use decisions, other than annexations, within the unincorporated urbanizable area, in conformance with these adopted policies. Additionally: 0 235 A) The City shall be requested to respond to pending applications for land use changes in the unincorporated urbanizable area. If no response is received within fourteen days, the County will assume the City has no objections to the request B) The City will request that the County respond to pending applications for land use changes within the incorporated area which could affect land under County jurisdiction. If no response is received within fourteen days, the City will assume the County has no objections to the request. C) Recognizing that unincorporated areas within the Urban Growth Boundary could ultimately become part of Central Point, the City's recommendations will be given due consideration. It is the intent of the County to administer a mutually adopted City/County policy in the urbanizable area until such time as the area is annexed. 7. Lands in the vicinity of the Seven Oaks interchange, as delineated on Map 1 attached, are considered unique because of the transportation facilities present. The I-5 Interchange Area Management flan (IAMP) for Exit 35 addresses the unique characteristics of the area and recommendations from the pian will be incorporated into the City and County Comprehensive Plans. Portions of this area are in Central Point's Urban Reserve while the remainder is designated an Area of Mutual Planning Concern and shall be protected frons premature development. Additionally: A) The County shall ensure that the area remains in a rural character so that a priority is placed on urban development within the UGB, as planned. B) The Seven Oaks Interchange Area of Mutual Planning Concern shall retain its present County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map designation, or similar "rural" designation, until such time as the area can be shown to be needed for the City's urbanization, in accordance with the seven urbanization factors of Statewide goal 14 and the provisions of this agreement that pertain to City -initiated comprehensive plan amendments - 8. Lands in the vicinity of and including Forest/Gibbon Acres west of Table Rock Road, as delineated on Map 2 attached, are considered remote to Central Point at this time. Although located outside of any Urban Reserve, this area is designated an area ofMutual Planning Concern and shall be protected from premature or more intense development. Additionally: A) The County shall ensure that the area remains in a rural character so that a priority is placed on urban development within the UGB and URAs, as planned. 236 B) The Forest/Gibbon Acres Area of Mutual Planning Concern shall retain its present County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map designation, or similar "rural" designation, until such time as the area can be shown to be needed for the City's urbanization or for inclusion in Medford or in White City should it incorporate. Inclusion in a planning area will occur in accordance with the seven urbanization factors of Statewide goal 14 and the provisions of this agreement that pertain to City -initiated comprehensive plan amendments. 9. Lands under the ownership of Jackson County between Gebhard Road and Interstate -5 north of Pine Street, including the Jackson County Expo (fairgrounds) and property in the ownership of Jackson County adjacent to the Expo as delineated on Map 3 attached, are designated an Area of Mutual Planning Concern and shall be protected from uncoordinated land use development. Additionally: A) The County shall ensure that all land use planning that occurs will be coordinated with the City so that a priority is placed on urban development within the UGB and URAs, as planned. B) The Jackson County Expo Area of Mutual Planning Concern shall retain its present County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map designation, or designations unique to the fairground master plan, until such time as the area can be shown to be needed for the City's urbanization, in accordance with the seven urbanization factors of Statewide goal 14 and the provisions of this agreement that pertain to City4nitiated comprehensive plan amendments. C) During the first coordinated Periodic Review process for the Regional Plan, Jackson County shall consider including the land occupied by the Jackson County Expo to the City of Central Point Urban Reserve Area. D) The impacts of County development upon City and Regional infrastructure shall be assessed and mitigated in order to obtain a mutually beneficial outcome to both entities. 10. Lands within the urbanizable area which currently support a farm use shall be encouraged, through zoning and appropriate tax incentives, to remain in that use for as long as is "economically feasible". A) "Economically feasible", as used in this policy, shall be interpreted to mean feasible from the standpoint of the property owner. Implementation of this policy will be done on a voluntary basis. B) "Exclusive Farm" or other appropriate low -intensity rural zoning designation shall be applied to areas within the UGB by the County for the 237 purpose of maintaining agricultural land uses and related tax incentives until such time as planned annexation and urban development occur. C) "Suburban Residential" or other zoning designations that would permit non-agricultural land uses to develop prematurely could result in obstacles to future planned and coordinated growth and, therefore, should be restricted to only those areas that are already developed to such levels. D) Agricultural zoning policies contained herein apply only to areas identified by the City or County as agricultural lands within the UGB, URA's or Seven Oaks Area of Mutual Planning Concern and shall not be used as a standard to review other land use applications within these areas. 11. The City and County acknowledge the importance of protecting agricultural lands. Therefore: A) While properties are in agricultural use, the City will apply the below standards when adjacent lands are proposed for urban residential development: i. To mitigate the potential for vandalism, the development's design should incorporate the use of visible public or semipublic open space adjacent to the agricultural lands. ii. To mitigate nuisances originating from agricultural noise, odors, irrigation run-off, and agricultural spray drift, the development's design should incorporate: a. The use of landscaping and berms where a positive buffering benefit can be demonstrated. b. The orientation of structures and fencing relative to usable exterior space such as patios, rear yards and courts, such that the potential impacts from spray drift, dust, odors, and noise intrusion are minimized. C. The design and construction of all habitable buildings, including window and door locations, should be such that the potential impact of spray drift, noise, dust, and odors upon interior living/working areas will be minimized. d. Physical separation between agricultural lands and urban development shall be utilized to the greatest extent possible to minimize adverse impacts. Site design emphasizing the appropriate use of open space areas, streets, and areas not 7 238 designed specifically for public recreation or assembly shall be considered. B) The City and County mutually agree herewith that the buffering standards established by the Jackson County Regional Plan and adopted by the City of Central Point have or can and will be met, prior to annexation or urban development of lands. C) The City and County mutually agree to involve affected Irrigation Districts prior to annexation or when contemplating urban development of lands. 12. The City, County, and other affected agencies shall coordinate the expansion and development of all urban facilities and services within the urbanization area. Additionally: A) Provisions for urban facilities and services shall be planned in a manner limiting duplication in an effort to provide greater efficiency and economy of operation. B) A single urban facility or service extended into the urbanixabie area must be coordinated with the planned future development of all other facilities and services appropriate to that area, and shall be provided at levels necessary for expwx.W uses, as designated in the City"s Comprehensive Plan. 13. All County road construction and reconstruction resulting from new development, redevelopment, or land division, in the urbanizable area shall be to urban standards, except that the term "reconstruction" does not include normal road maintenance by the County. 14. Except for URAs, no other land or non -municipal improvements located outside the Urban Growth Boundary shall be permitted to connect to the water line serving Erickson unless it is first included in the Urban Growth Boundary or a "reasons" exception is taken to applicable Statewide Land Use Planning Goals which allows such connection. The owners of such benefited property must sign an irrevocable consent to annex to the City of Central Point. AMENDMENTS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY The procedure for joint City and County review and amendment of urban growth boundary and urbanization policies are established as follows: 239 MAJOR REVISIONS Major revisions in boundary or policies will be considered amendments to both the City and County comprehensive plans and, as such, are subject to a legislative review process. A major revision shall include any boundary change that has widespread and significant impact beyond the immediate area, such as quantitative changes allowing for substantial changes in population or significant increases in resource impacts; qualitative changes in the land use itself, such as conversion of residential to industrial use, or spatial changes that affect large areas of many different ownerships. Any change in urbanization policies is considered a major revision. Major revisions will be considered by the City and County at periodic intervals in accordance with the terms of the mutually adopted urban growth boundary agreements between the County and each municipal jurisdiction. It is the intent of the governing bodies to review the urban growth boundary and urbanization policies for consistency upon completion of the City and County Comprehensive plans. A request for major revision can be initiated only by the County or City governing bodies or their respective planning commissions. Individuals, groups, citizen advisory committees, and affected agencies may petition the County or appropriate City in accordance with the procedural guidelines adopted by the jurisdiction for initiating major legislative amendments. The party who seeks the revision shall be responsible for filing adequate written documentation with the City and County governing bodies. Final legislative action on major revision requests shall be based on the factors stated in each mutually adopted urban growth boundary agreement. Generally these are: A) Demonstrated need to accommodate unpredicted population trends, to satisfy urban housing needs, or to assure adequate employment opportunities; B) The orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services; C) Maximum efficiency of land uses within the current urbanizable area; D) Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; E) Compatibility of the proposed change with other elements of the City and County comprehensive plans; and, F) The other statewide planning goals. Major revision proposals shall be subject to a mutual City and County review and agreement process involving affected agencies, citizen advisory committees, and the general public. The review process has the following steps: 240 A) CAC and planning commissions review and make recommendations to the City Council and Board of County Commissioners; B) Proposal mailed to the affected agencies and property owners; and, C) Proposal heard and acted upon by City Council and Board of County Commissioners. MINOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS Minor adjustments to an urban growth boundary line may be considered subject to similar procedures used by the City and County in hearing zoning requests. A minor amendment is defined as focusing on specific individual properties and not having significant impacts beyond the immediate area of the change. Application for a minor boundary line amendment can only be made by property owners, their authorized agents, or by a City or County governing body. Written applications for amendments may be Filed in the office of the Jackson County Department of Planning and Development on forms prescribed by the County. The standards for processing an application are as indicated in the mutually adopted urban growth boundary agreement. Generally these are the same factors as for a major urban growth boundary amendment. CORRECTION OF ERRORS A. An error is generally considered to be a cartographic mistake, or a misprint, omission, or duplication in the text. They are technical in nature and not the result of new information or changing attitudes or policies. B. If the City Council and Board of County Commissioners become aware of an error in the map(s) or text of this mutually -adopted urbanization program, both bodies may cause an immediate amendment to correct the error, after mutual agreement is reached. C. Corrections shall be made by ordinance, following a public hearing conducted by both governing bodies, but hearings before the planning commissions shall not be required when an amendment is intended specifically to correct an error. REVIEW, AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT A. This Agreement may be reviewed and amended at any time by mutual consent of both parties, after public hearings by the Council and the Board of Commissioners. 10 241 B. Any modifications to this Agreement will be consistent with City and County comprehensive plans and state law. C. Staff from City and County will attempt to informally resolve any disputes regarding the terms, conditions, or meaning of this Agreement. For any disputes not resolved through this informal process, the Council and the BOC will meet jointly in an attempt to resolve those disputes. Either party may request the services of a mediator to resolve any dispute. D. This Agreement may be terminated by either party subsequent to dissolution of a URA or an Area of Mutual Planning Concern. Such termination shall proceed through a properly noticed public hearing process. This agreement supersedes the prior agreement between the parties on the same subject matter approved by the County on , 20___, and by the City on ,20 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT JACKSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Hamm Williams, �Aayor DATE Doug, BreidenLhal, f" hair DATE APPROVED AS TO FORM: County Counsel ATTEST: ATTEST: City Administrator Recording Secretary 11 242 JACKSON COUNTY JACK I SON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP 2E COUNTY lw�2W 4W 3w It I r-4 ATT ACIUM FNT "C" 4E_ _F�'_` I 3fL] .1-w i 30 T -T 1 311 1 321 33 33 34� 34 351 i T 35 j 36 36 37I 1 41- 7- 37 381.1 1 n. lk m.- 38 3 T r 39 + 4 T. 4- 4_1 40 r N4 Lp Ll 41 41 4W 3W 2W lw 1E 2E 3E 4E 243 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT STATE OF OREGON IN THE MATTER OF A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONE CHANGE FOR TWO PARCELS THAT ARE ADDRESSED AS 3428 AND 3470 CHICORY LANE, AND ARE LOCATED EAST OF CHICORY LANE AT THE TERMINUS OF LINDSAY COURT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT AND IS MORE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS TAX LOTS 8300 AND 8400 IN TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST (WM), SECTION 11C. Applicant/ owners: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC Agent: CSA Planning, Ltd. ATTACHMENT "D" PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW NATURE OF THE APPLICATION Applicants' Exhibit 2 Applicants request a consolidated annexation and zone change for two lots totaling 3.64 acres east of Chicory Lane and the terminus of Lindsay Court. The subject property has a Comprehensive Plan designation of TOD Corridor. The Applicant requests the City rezone the property as part of the annexation request to City zone and specifically requests the TOD LMR (R-2). In addition to the zone change, the application includes a precautionary Comprehensive Plan Map amendment request in the event that the City (or the Courts on appeal) were to conclude that a Comprehensive Plan amendment is required for the requested zone change for the subject property. 244 Page 1 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC I I EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATIONS Applicant herewith submits the following evidence with its land use application: Exhibit 1. Completed application forms and Duly Executed Limited Powers of Attorney from Applicants and Owners authorizing CSA Planning, Ltd. to act on their behalf. Exhibit 2. These proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, demonstrating how the application complies with the applicable substantive criteria of Central Point' s Land Development Ordinance and applicable State Law and Municipal Code. Exhibit 3. Jackson County Assessor Plat Map 37 -2W -11C Exhibit 4. Current Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Exhibit 5. Current Zoning Map (County Zoning) on Aerial Photo Exhibit 6. Proposed Zoning Map Exhibit 7. Background and Historical Map and Ordinances A) 1987 Zoning Map (adopted in 1989) B) Ordinance 1793 and Related Information C) Ordinance 1815 and Related information Exhibit S. Annexation Petition Exhibit 9. Public Facilities Maps A) Waterline Map B) Storm Drainage Map C) Sanitary Sewer Map Exhibit 10. Wetlands Study Map Exhibit 11. Civil Analysis Exhibit 12. Preliminary Plat and Legal Description Page 2 245 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA The relevant substantive criteria prerequisite to approving an Annexation with a minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change lander the City of Central Point Zoning Ordinance ("CPZO") is recited verbatim below: CITY OF CENTRAL POINT ZONING ORDINANCE (CPZO) Chapter 1.20 ANNEXATION PROCEDURE 222.111 Authority and procedure for annexation. (1) When a proposal containing the terms of annexation is approved in the manner provided by the charter of the annexing city or by ORS 222.111 to 222.180 or 222.840 to 222.915, the boundaries of any city may be extended by the annexation of territory €hat is not within a dty and that is contiguous to the city or separated from it only by a pubac right of way or a stream, bay, fake or other body of water. Such territory may tie either wholly w parbe*y within or wS9mx,t the sarne county in ah Ich the: city les. (2) A proposal for annexation of territory tp a city may be initiated by the legislative body of the city o0 its own motion, or by a petition to the legislative txxty of the r:ity by owners of real property in tf•te territory to be annexed. (5) The Wgistative body of the city shall submit, except when to requovo under ORS 722.120.222 170 and 222.840 to 221.915 to do so, the proposal for annexation to he electors of the terr" pr'opassd for amexation anti. except when pefatilted under ORS 222.120 or 222.840 to 222.915 to dispense *lh submitting the proposal for annexation to the electors of the city, the legislative body of the city shall subm'st such prrrxxl.,al to the plecteirR of tho city The proposal for annexation may be voted upon at a general election or at a special election to be held for that purpose. 222.126 Procedure far annexatlon without election; hearing; ordinance subject to rsfarendum. (1) Except when expressly required to do so by the city charter, the legislative body of a city Is not required to submit a proposal for annexation of territory to the electors of the city for their approval or relecbon. (2) When the legislative body of the city elects to dispense with submitting the question of the proposed annexation to the electors of the city, the legislative body of the city shall fix a day for a public hearing before the legislative body at which time the electors of the city may appear and be heard on the question of annexation. (3) The city legislative body shall cause notice of the hearing to be published once each week for two successive weeks prior to the day of hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, and shall cause notices of the hearing to be posted in four public places in the city for a like period. (4) After the hearing, the city legislative body may, by an ordinance containing a legal description of the territory in question: (a) Declare that the territory is annexed to the city upon the condition that the majority of the votes cast In the territory Is In favor of annexation; (b) Declare that the territory is annexed to the city where electors or landowners in the contiguous territory consented In writing to such annexation, as provided in ORS 222.125 or 222.170, prior to the public hearing held under subsection (2) of this section; or (7) For the purpose of this section, ORS 222.125 and 222.170, 'owner" or "landowner" means the legal owner of record or, where there Is a recorded land contract which is In force, the purchaser thereunder. If there is a multiple ownership in a parcel of land each consenting owner shall be counted as a fraction to the same extent as the interest of the owner in the land bears in relation to the interest of the other 246 Page 3 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC owners and the same fraction shall be applied to the parcel's land mass and assessed value for purposes of the consent petition. If a corporation owns land in territory proposed to be annexed, the corporation shall be considered the individual owner of that land. 1.20.010 Generally. All proposals for annexation of real property to the city under the provisions of Oregon Revised Statutes 222.111 to 222.180, now in effect or as hereafter amended, shall be accompanied by a preliminary plat, an exterior boundary legal description and the annexation fee as in this chapter provided. (Ord. 1186 §1, 1974). 1.20.011 Application and review. Applications and review thereof shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 1.1. 7-p5 of the CenlraI Point Municipal Code and all applicable laws of the state. Applications for annexation may be accompanied by other, concurrent applications, for amendment to the comprehensive plan, amendments to the zoning map and requests for withdrawal from special districts, provided that such concurrent applications meet all requirements therefor. ZONE CHANGE CRITERIA 17.12.060 Zoning of annexed area. AH future annexations are expected to include only Fends within the city's urban growth boundary (UG13). The comprehensive plan of Central Point Includes a plan for future land uses within the t1GB area. The zoning (nap described in Section 17.12.1730 is consistent vAm the Corrlpr>ghens[ve plan and will determine the dlstricr into which a nevAy annexed area is placed. The appropnale zoning dMrict siraAl be applied to the area upon annexation. 17.10.200 Initiation of amendments. A proposed timmeruintenS to the code or zora~tg map may be irtiloted by eRt+er: A A rPsolutxxt by the planning rxtmmL-,sinn to the dty rxxtnnl; 8. A resolution of intent by the city councg; or for zoning map amendments; C. An applicatlon by one or more property owners (zonirsg map amendments only), or their agents. of property affected by the proposed amendment. The amendment shall be accompanied by a legal description of the property or properties affected; proposed findings of fads supporting the proposed amendment, jusgfying the same and addressing the substantive standards for such an amendment as required by this chapter and by the Land Conservation and Development Commission of the state. (Ord.1989 §1 (part), 2014). 17.10.300 Major and minor amendments. There are two types of map and text amendments: A. Major Amend menis. bAajor amendments are legislative policy decisions that estabbh by general policies and regulations for future land use decisions, such as revisions to the zoning and land division ordinance that have widespread and significant impact beyond the immediate area. Major amendments are reviewed using the Type IV procedure in Section 17'.05_500. B. Minor Amendments. Minor amendments are those that involve the application of adopted policy to a speck development application, and not the adoption of new policy (i.e., major amendments). Minor amendments shall follow the Type III procedure, as set forth in Section 17,05.4 , The approval authority shalt be the city council after review and recommendation by the planning commission. (Ord. 1989 §1 (part), 2014; Ord. 1874 §3(part), 2006). 17.10.400 Approval criteria. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a text or map amendment shall be based on written findings and conclusions that address the following criteria: A. Approval of the request is consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals (major amendments only); B. Approval of the request is consistent with the Central Point comprehensive plan (major and minor amendments); C. If a zoning map amendment, findings demonstrating that adequate public services and transportation networks to serve the property are either available, or identified for construction in the city`s public facilities master plans (major and minor amendments); and Page 4 247 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fallows Construction, LLC D. The amendment complies with OAR 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule. (Ord. 1989 §1 (part), 2014; Ord. 1874 §3(part), 2006. Formerly 17,10.300(B)). OREGON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12 SECTION 660-012-0060 (1) Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, the local government shall put in purr. measures as provided in section (2) of this rule to assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, eta) of the facility. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if It would: (a] Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facifrty (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Change standards implementing a functional dassftation system; or (c) As measured at the end of the planning period Identified In the adopted transportation system plan: (A) Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned tra nVo rtation facility; (B) Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation faca:ity below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) Worsen the performance of an exlsiing or planned transpariation facility that is othe:wise pr-*cted lu perform below the min".urn acceplabie perkwmance standard ideriffied in the TSP or comprehensive plan. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA 17.96.200 Initiation of amendments. A proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan or urban growth boundary may be Initiated by either: A. A resolution by the planning commission to the city council; B. A resolution of intent by the city council; or C. M application by one or mora property owners, or their agents, of property affected by the proposed amendment. 17.96.300 Major revisions and minor changes. Proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan, including urban growth boundary amendments, are cateyr�ri!,x� as oitrier major or nrrrkor amendments as defined in Seaton 17.14.300. Proposais for major reosions shall be processed as a Type IV procedure per Section 17.05.50D. Proposals for minor changes shall be processed as a Type III proc cdurc per Stiction 17.05.100. 17.96.500 Approval criteria. A recommendation or a decision to approve or to deny an application for an amendment to the comprehensive plan, or urban growth boundary shall be based on written findings and conclusions that address the following criteria: A. Approval of the request Is consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals; B. Approval of the request Is consistent with the Central Point comprehensive plan; C. For urban growth boundary amendments findings demonstrate that adequate public services and transportation networks to serve the property are either available, or Identified for construction In the city's public facilities master plans (major and minor amendments); and 0. The amendment complies with OAR 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule. fJ 248 Page 5 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC IV FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts are established and found to be true with respect to this matter: 1. Ownership/Applicant: Tax Lots 8300 and 8400 are owned in fee simple by Bob Fellows Construction, LLC. Agent CSA Planning, Ltd. is submitting this application on behalf of the Property Owner/Applicant. 2. Location: The subject property is located on the east side of Chicory Lane, east of the terminus of Lindsay Court. The property is identified as Tax Lots 8300 and 8400 in Township 37 South, Range 02 West (W.M.), Section 11C. The site addresses are 3428 and 3470 Chicory Lane, Central Point, OR. 3. Parcel Size: Tax Lot 8300 currently has 1.75 acres and Tax Lot 8400 currently has 1.89 acres. See, Exhibit 3. Total subject property size is 3.64 acres. Potential future development is likely to be laid out roughly according to table below: 4. Current Zoning: The property is currently under Jackson County jurisdiction and is zoned GI, General Industrial. See, Exhibits 5. 5. Proposed Zoning Map: Applicant requests the City apply the TOD LMR (R2) zoning to the subject property. 6. Existing Frontage and Access: The subject property has 520 feet of frontage on Chicory Lane along the western and southwestern boundary lines. In addition, the property has approximately 97 feet of frontage at the terminus of the northern portion of S. Haskell Street. 7. Lot Legality: Tax Lots 8300 and 8400 were originally part of Lot "K' of the Snowy Butte Orchard which was platted in 1910. In 1944 the North 5 acres of Lot "K" was sold leaving the subject property as one parcel. In 1956, what is now Tax Lot 8300 was partitioned off by sale, leaving the existing configuration of the subject property tract. 8. Existing Development: Each parcel currently has one residence with related accessory structures. 249 Page 6 PROPERTYSUBJECT Acreage Type Net Acres Percent of gross acres Residential Area 1.92 53% Ri ht-ofWay/Pars 1.50 41% Total 1 3.64 4. Current Zoning: The property is currently under Jackson County jurisdiction and is zoned GI, General Industrial. See, Exhibits 5. 5. Proposed Zoning Map: Applicant requests the City apply the TOD LMR (R2) zoning to the subject property. 6. Existing Frontage and Access: The subject property has 520 feet of frontage on Chicory Lane along the western and southwestern boundary lines. In addition, the property has approximately 97 feet of frontage at the terminus of the northern portion of S. Haskell Street. 7. Lot Legality: Tax Lots 8300 and 8400 were originally part of Lot "K' of the Snowy Butte Orchard which was platted in 1910. In 1944 the North 5 acres of Lot "K" was sold leaving the subject property as one parcel. In 1956, what is now Tax Lot 8300 was partitioned off by sale, leaving the existing configuration of the subject property tract. 8. Existing Development: Each parcel currently has one residence with related accessory structures. 249 Page 6 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC 9. Land Uses on Abutting Properties and Surrounding Area: Overview of area: This area, west of the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way and south of Pine Street has been in the process of being developed as a transit -oriented corridor. A variety of residential development exists in the area. East: The property abuts the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way on the east. Adjacent to the railroad right-of-way is the Highway 99 right -of --way. Highway 99 is a five -lane major arterial with four travel lanes and a center turn lane. North: To the north is a small development of single-family houses with ADU units constricted around 2010 on lots that range in size from 7,299 to 7,950 square feet. There is also a 9,892 square foot open space area. Beyond that is a large church property. West: To the west is a residential subdivision with medium-size lots ranging from .18 to .30 acres in size with single-family houses of various ages built out since the mid -70's. South: The property abuts one 4 acre rural residential property to the south and beyond is a small lot subdivision with lots ranging from .11 to .15 acres. 10. Topography: The subject property is wsentiatly level, sloping very gently to the northeast. 11. Water Facilities and Services: There is a 12 inch waterline at the terminus of Haskell Street and an 8 inch waterline in Chicory Lane, see Exhibit 9A. 12. Storm Drainage Facilities and �1 Y1CeJ: Underground storm. drainage finis arc JVVated in the railroad right-of-way where a 12 inch culvert drains the property from one side of the railroad to the other. There are also storm drainage lines in Haskell Street and Lindsey Court. These storm drain lines are available for connection, see Exhibit 9B. 13. Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Services: There are 8 inch RVSS sewer lines in both Chicory Lane and at the stub of Haskell Street that are available for connection, see Exhibit 9C. 14. Power and Natural Gas: Underground power is available from Pacific Power and underground gas is available from Avista Utilities for extension from Haskell Street. 15. Fire and Police Protection: The subject properties are located within and are served by Fire District No. 3. Police service is provided by the City of Central Point Police Department. 16. Wetlands, Streams and floodplain: The subject property does not contain any streams or floodplain. Preliminary determination of wetlands on the site is provided on Exhibit t0. 17. Transportation and Access: A. Zone Change (and precautionary Plan Amendment Findings): Applicant is requesting the City apply the TOD-LMR zoning with the base zoning of R-2. These zoning designations allow a density up to 12 units to the net acre. Assuming 41% of 250 Page 7 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC the site would be consumed by infrastructure, this translates to approximately 1.92 net acres or about 23 total dwelling units. Single-family dwellings generate just under 1 peak hour trip per unit. The existing General Industrial designation in the County would generate approximately 7.26 trips per acre'. Assuming 13% of the site would be consumed for street development (Haskell Street only) 3.17 acres would be left for development, this would yield approximately 23 trips from the current zoning. Thus, the net trip effect of the proposed zone change is net 4 PM change to peak hour trips. Applicant's position is that since the net -trip impact is zero, it does not warrant a detailed transportation impact analysis. B. Access and Circulation: Access to the site is via Lindsey Court and Haskell Street, and along its frontage with Chicory Lane. If the annexation and zone change is approved, it is expected that future development access will occur as a result of extension of Lindsey Court through the subject property to a future extension of Haskell Street. 18. Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map Analysis: A. Historical Map Analysis: The subject property and surrounding area has a somewhat complicated map designation history. The site was designated as Industrial on the Comprehensive Plan. The City's 1987 zoning map showed the property as M-1 even though the property was still in the County and zoned General Industrial. The M-1 zone is the City's base industrial zone and allows for a wide variety of industrial and manufacturing uses. During this period, the land to the north and south was planned Industrial and the City's zoning map depicts M-2 to the north and M-1 to the south. In September of 1998, the City of Central Point did a large legislative amendment that included multiple ordinances. Those ordinances re -arranged land uses in the City's UGB and also amended the Urban Growth Management Agreement (UGMA) with Jackson County. Ordinance No. 1793 amended the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for this area as "Area 2" in that package of legislative amendments. The land uses were re -designated from Industrial to Low -Density Residential and High Density Residential. Most of this area was outside the City limits at the time, but the City adopted a new zoning map for this area that depicted the subject property and the land immediately to the south as R-3 with lands further to the South as R-1-6. During Lhe adoption proceedings DLCD raised concerns and the City responded to those concerns as follows: DLCD Correspondence: The first statement made by DLCD staff Is that industrial, commercial and residential acreages need to "balance" so that the city continues to have a twenty year supply of land for each use. Statewide Planning Goals 9, 10 and 14 are cited as the legislative requirements for a twenty year supply and it is pointed out that Central Point's proposal will r This rate is from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook 7" Edition. This is GSA's most recent copy. A more recent version is available but would not he expected to change the estimates enough to result in a different outcome- that the change in trip generation potential is de minimus, See also below analysis regarding net -to - gross factors for the site. 251 Page a Flndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC decrease the amount of industrial land by 104 acres and increase both commercial land (by 32 acres) and residential land by 94 acres. The state asks that justification be provided to ensure the City will have enough of a land use mix to meet future employment needs with its industrial and commercial land inventory (as defined by Oregon Administrative Rule 660-09-0250) and future housing needs (as defined by OAR 660-08-010). The belief is that failing to balance jobs and housing will lead to an increase in work-related vehicle trips and the corresponding failure to meet regional transportation objectives. City of Central Point response: There are no specific statements in any of the Goals regarding the "balance" DLCD discusses however Goal 9 does encourage municipalities to provide an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types and locations for a variety of industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies. For nearly twenty years the City of Central Point has regularly experienced, residential prosperity ... not shared by the commercial and industrial sectors ... A major objective of this (Comp) Plan is to promote a greater emphasis on commercial and industrial growth ... (refer to Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Economics Page IX -14). The land use designations that the City is now proposing to change were created in the 1980's. Of the three land use categories, the industrial land has been the slowest to develop and in most cases has been farmed or remained vacant throughout the planning period. Recent attempts to develop industrial land west of Interstate 5 have met with significant local opposition. In contrast, the City has received two separate requests in the last 60 days to annex a total of 50 acres of industrially designated land east ofi-5 for immediate development. it is the City's conviction that the potential for marketing industrial land east of 1-5 (and in fhP vicinity of the airport) is greater than it is west of 1-5 in spite of the land's proximity to the railroad. In response to OAR 660-09-015, the City has not only identified industrial and commercial sites (in Area #3) that could reasonably be expected to locate or expand in the planning area ... and likely to be needed, but has identified sites for which there is now a development demand. The letter from Bear Creek Orchards, Inc. (which was read into the public record on May 5, 1998) also substantiates the City's analysis and findings. Over the years, Jackson County has received authorization from the State to develop the White City industrial complex which is also served by the railroad. Heavier industrial uses have found the area more desirable due to the number of large vacant parcels with ample infrastructure and no munlclpal taxes. When viewed in a regional and historic contoxt, Control Point has an adequate supply of industrially designated land and a net reduction of 104 acres does not materially diminish this supply. In fact, DLCD has previously stated to City staff that light industry often generates higher numbers of employees than heavy industrial uses. The RVMPO Regional Transportation Plan, prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. speaks to the issue of regional land use development patterns (RVMPO RTP, Page X111-1). The Plan states that, evaluations and research conducted in Oregon and elsewhere suggests that a mix of land uses involving residential and commercial activity in adjoining areas can contribute to lower travel demand than a development scheme with more Page 9 252 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC widely -separated uses. This is one of the reasons the City wishes to develop residential land in closer proximity to its downtown commercial business district and is also proposing small-scale commercial uses near prospective residential subdivisions in Areas 1 and 4. It should be noted that industrial land uses generate fewer vehicle trips than do commercial uses (reference the OTE Manual). Therefore the balance between residential and commercial uses is more significant in terms of lowering travel demand than the balance between residential and industrial uses. There is a 3:1 ratio between the residential and commercial zone changes being proposed. The City's findings (at Record Page 122-123) reject DLCD's notion that a precise balance of land uses was required at the time of the amendments. instead, the findings make a more generalized determination that the adopted land use re - designations are appropriate based upon market demand and locational factors. Following the major legislative amendment to the City's UGB, the City undertook another major legislative amendment in the form of Ordinance No. 1815. That ordinance created the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) standards and established two new Comprehensive Plan Map Designations: TOD District and the TOD Corridor. The main difference between these two designations is that the TOD District lands are required to apply the new TOD zoning districts and the TOD Corridor lands are afforded the option to develop under the original zoning or under the new TOD zoning district standards. What is not clear from Ordinance No, 1815, is how future changes between zoning districts within these TOD designation areas relates to the overall arrangement of land uses on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Both the TOD District and the TOD Corridor allow for a variety of zoning districts including a wide variety of employment and industrial uses. For lands that were already in the City, this is somewhat less problematic because the zoning map that went with the Ordinance actually applied the new zoning to those lands. However, in the case of lands not in the City the zoning map is more "prospective" and it is unclear whether a zone change alone is adequate to apply a different zone at the time of annexation than the "prospective zone" depicted on the City's zoning map within the TOD District Corridor or whether such a change also requires a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Because of this procedural ambiguity, the Applicant has addressed the criteria for Comprehensive Plan Map amendment as a precautionary measure to assure an adequate factual base for the requested annexation and zone change. Not long aller the TOD Corridor was created, the laud south of the Quillen property (TL 1000) was annexed and rezoned to TOD-LMR and was developed as the Cascade Meadows Subdivision in 2002. Subsequently, land to the north was rezoned from TOD-GC (M-1) to TOD-LMR and TOD-Civic. B. Residential Land Supply and Demand Analysis: Based upon the structure of the City's regulations and the particular history associated with the subject property it is a little discern exactly what the contemplated zoning for the property is - following the TOD Curridur eslablisluneut from a quantitative standpoint, however, the prior amendments that redistributed land uses in the City contemplated the subject property 253 Page 10 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC as High Density Residential (R-3). While those amendments did not include precise calculations of the supply and demand implications of the redistribution, the Comprehensive Plan amendments did treat the subject property as High Density Residential and so a quantitative comparison in relation to the subject property between the two zoning districts is useful, as follows: To do this, first calculate the potential range of density for the property: Then compare the potential number of units under each zoning districts: Dwening ' Owe" D"'l V Units Density' Units Density Units Density TODAMR (R-2) 23 12 12 6 18 9.4 TOD-!AMR (R-2) – ?7 14 1 Al � 17 30 15.6 Not Oweling Units f -4 1 F -49 1 1 -12 From a pure regulatory standpoint, the range of potential dwelling unit differences is from as small as 4 to as much as 49. From a technical perspective, it is important to explain the 41% net -to -grass factor. This factor is higher than is typical, but preliminary design work on the site indicates this is appropriate given the requirements to address potential wetlands mitigation, a collector road right-of-way and the need to extend Lindsey Court. From an actual build -out standpoint, the implications of zoning the property TOD- LMR versus TOD-MMR or R-3 are expected to be small. Our client is not interested in doing a large apartment project on the site and would design to the minimum density under the MMR zoning of 14 units per acre. It would be impossible to achieve more than 30 units on the site without a large apartment building component. Under the LMR zoning, preliminary design work indicates units per the net acre would be expected to come in around 9.4. The proposed TOD-LMR zoning is expected to result in approximately 12 fewer units from a real-world perspective. Twelve units is a small number that has relatively little impact on the ability of the City, as a whole, to comply with its Statewide Planning Goal 10 requirements. CA 254 Page 11 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC C. Qualitative and Locational Analysis: The Applicant believes there are a number of qualitative and locational considerations that make the TOD-LMR zoning the most appropriate zoning for the area. Locational and qualitative reasons to zone the property TOD-LMR include the following: i. The property to the north remained industrial at the time the land use redistribution was done in 1998. At that time, the subject property represented a transition area from single-family to the south to industrial to the north. This concept was perpetuated when the TOD Corridor was adopted where a large area of TOD-GC (M-2) existed to the north. This circumstance no longer exists. The land immediately to the north is now zoned TOD-LMR and is developed with single-family dwellings. The site will no longer serves as a transition area between single family and more intensively developed areas as is described for MMR by Ordinance No. 1815, "The moderate density in these areas is intended to continue the transition from lower density residential uses on the perimeter of the TOD District to the more densely developed center of the district." ii. There is now approximately half the acreage remaining in the TOD-GC (M-2 & M-1) designation to the north than there was at the time the TDD Corridor designation was in place. Consequently, there are fewer opportunities for interactions between housing and employment/commercial uses. The only employment use west of the railroad and within a quarter mile of the site is an office use (Microvellurn) and there are no commercial retail uses within a quarter mile that are west of the railroad tracks. The opportunities for high density housing to interact with commercial development to the north has been reduced to an extend that development to the upper density of the TOD- MMR range less desirable and thereby making the practical difference in expected future housing supply to be small. iii. 1n addition to the technical land use planning reasons to designate the property TOD-LMR (R-2), there are market reasons for this designation. The TOD standards for mixed housing types at MMR level densities works best on larger sites with more developable acreage. From a housing market perspective, economies of scale are important for economic multi -family development. Four eight-plex rental apartment buildings mixed in with 12 for -sale small lot houses is difficult to make work but something like this is really all that would fit on a site this size if the project is going to achieve anything close to the mid -point or above for the MMR density range. Neither housing type is going to work very well. Four apartment buildings is not enough to support construction and maintenance of the kind of amenities you want for apartment projects — like a pool, pool-house/ree center, playground etc as well as cost effective utilities and grounds maintenance. Meanwhile, the small -lot single-family unit prices are likely to be negatively affected by the immediate proximity of the apartment building project component. The single-family quality components are likely to suffer as a result. Page 12 255 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC The Applicant, Bob Fellows Construction, has a proven track record of supplying new single-family houses that represent good value. The Applicant's concept for the project is stili to attain a reasonable density with small lots (-4,500 square feet) and house pians appropriate for the lot size. This project concept is expected to deliver an excellent value proposition for aging homeowners looking to downsize and young families looking for that first or second home. The Applicant believes this market segment is important to the community and is underserved in Central Point. 256 Page 13 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC VA CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ANNEXATION & ZONE CHANGE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT ZONING ORDINANCE (CPZO) The following conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions are reached under each of the relevant substantive criteria which are recited verbatim and addressed below. The conclusions of law are supported by Applicants' evidentiary Exhibits at Section H and Findings of Fact in Section 1V. Chapter 1.20 ANNEXATION PROCEDURE 222.111 Authority and procedure for annexation. (1) When a proposal containing the temis at annexation is approved in ft manner provided by the charier of the annexing city or by ORS 222.11 t to 222.180 or 222.840 to 222.915. the bourxfaries ct any dry may 4e extended by the annexaton of territory that is not w 4dri a city and that is conllgumis. to the city or sepwated from it only by a public right of way or a stream. bay. lake or other body of wile*. Such temlory rrray lie either wholly or pa Mal lywith in W vel the same county in which the city ties. (2) A proposal for annexa6m of territory to a city may be it Wted by the legiA&VO body of 2W city. on its own mvWn, or by a petition to the leglslafive body of the city by owners of real property in the territory to be annexed. (S) The Ie*,1abre body of ft city shall submit, except when not regt*ed under OR$ ZU.120. 111.111} and 222.840 to 222.915 to do so, the proposal for annexation to the aledors of the territory proposed For annexation and, except when permttted under ORS 222.120 or 222.840 to ?.2'2.915 to dispense with submitting the proposal for annexation to the electors of the city. the legislative body of the city shall submit such proposal to the eteciors of Ifoe city. The proposal far anoexation may be voted upon vt a general election c at a special election to be held for that purpose. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the evidence in Exhibit 4, the City of Central Point Planning Commission and City Council (henceforth "the City") concludes the existing City limit is adjacent to the subject property and will result in a contiguous City limit following the annexation, The City herewith incorporates and adopts the annexation petition at Exhibit 8 and based thereupon concludes the proposal for annexation has been initiated by the owners of the real property in the territory to be annexed. The City further incorporates its findings under ORS 222.120 below and concludes based upon the same that ORS 222.120 allows the City Council to dispense with submission of the proposal for annexation to the electors of the City and does not herewith. 222.120 Procedure for annexation without election; hearing; ordinance subject to referendum. (1) Except when expressly required to do so by the city charter, the legislative body of a city is not required to submit a proposal for annexation of territory to the electors of the city for their approval or rejection. (2) When the legislative body of the city elects to dispense with submitting the question of the proposed annexation to the electors of the city, the legislative body of the city shall fix a day for a public hearing before the legislative body at which time the electors of the city may appear and be heard on the question of annexation. ® Page 14 257 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC (3) The city legislative body shall cause notice of the hearing to be published once each week for two successive weeks prior to the day of hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, and shall cause notices of the hearing to be posted in four public places in the city for a like period. (4) After the hearing, the city legislative body may, by an ordinance containing a legal description of the territory in question: (a) Declare that the territory is annexed to the city upon the condition that the majority of the votes cast in the territory is in favor of annexation; (b) Declare that the territory is annexed to the city where electors or landowners in the contiguous territory consented in writing to such annexation, as provided in ORS 222.125 or 222.170, prior to the public hearing held under subsection (2) of this section; or (7) For the purpose of this section. ORS 27.2,125 and 222.170, "owner' or'landowner" means the legal owner of record or, where there is a recorded land contract which is in force, the purchaser thereunder. If there is a multiple ownership in a parcel of land each consenting owner shall be counted as a fraction to the same extent as the Interest of the owner in the land bears in relation to the interest of the other owners and the same fraction shall be applied to the parcel's land mass and assessed value for purposes of the consent petition. If a cogmratlon owns land in territory proposed to be arvraxed, the corporation shall be considered the individual owner of that land. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the evidence provided by the Applicant and the evidence in the record, the City concludes that it has properly followed the hearing procedures for annexation and herewith declare the territory annexed pursuant to 222.120(4)(b). 1.20.010 Generally. M proposals for annexation of real property to the city under the provisions of Oregon revised Statutes 222.111 to 222.180, now in effect or as hereafter amended, shall be accompanied by a preliminary plat, an exterior boundary iegal descripHon and the annexadon fee as in this chapter provided_ (Ord. 1165 §1, 1974). Conclusions of Law: Based upon the conclusions of law hereinabove, the City concludes it has followed the provisions of CFKS 222.11 i to 222.i80 and that the proposal for annexation is accompanied by a preliminary plat and exterior boundary legal description provided at Exhibit 12. The City further concludes that the application includes the required annexation fee. 1.20.011 Application and review. Applications and review thereof shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 17_05 of the Central Point Municipal Code and all applicable laws of the state. Applications for annexation may be accompanied by other, concurrent applications, for amendment to the comprehensive plan, amendments to the zoning map and requests for withdrawal from special districts, provided that such concurrent applications meet all requirements therefor_ Conclusions of Law: The City concludes it has properly applied the procedures specified in Chapter 17.05. The City further concludes that the request of annexation is accompanied by a request for zone change as allowed by Section 1.20.011 as well as findings and evidence addressing the same herein (as well as the precautionary plan amendment also addressed herein). 258 Page 15 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR ZONE CHANGE Chapter 17.10 ZONE CHANGE 17.10A00 Approval criteria. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a text or map amendment shall be based on written findings and conclusions that address the following criteria: A. Approval of tre request is consistent vnth the applicable sLdewide planning goals (major amendments only); Conclusions of Law: The City herewith concludes that the proposed zone change is a minor (quasi-judicial amendment) and concludes accordingly that the criterion is not applicable to the subject application. S. Approval of rite request is consistent wffh the Central Point comprehensive pian (major and minor amendments): Conclusions of Law: The City concludes the proposed TOD-LMR (R-2) zoning is a permissible zone within the TOD Corridor Comprehensive Plan Map Designation and is therefore consistent. The City further concludes that prior legislative Comprehensive Plan processes contemplated that the subject site would be zoned TOD-.MMR (R-3) and that the proposed zoning is still a residential zone and one that is not expected to result in fewer dwelling units to such a degree as to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plana. C. If a zoning map amwWmenl. findings demomtrat':ng that adequate public services and tmmWoMftm netwo As to serve the property are either mailable. or fdoniifled for oonstr Xim in the dWs public fawn master plans (may and tnirwr amendments): and Conclusions of Law: Based upon the evidence in Section U and the findings of fact in Section IV, the City concludes as follows with respect to public services and transportation networks to serve the property: • Water, Sewer and Storm Drainage facilities exist at the property and are adequate in condition and capacity to serve the property. • The proposed zone change will result in little or no change in trip generation potential of the site therefore it is expected that no significant transportation impacts will result. • Police and Fire protection exist at the site currently and fire protection will continue at similar levels following the zone change while police service will then become primary responsibility of the Central Point Police Department. Z Applicant has also provided conclusions of law for a precautionary Comprehensive Plan amendment and the Statewide Planning Goals are addressed therein where substantively the same conclusions would be reached for the subject zoning map amendment. 3 If the City ultimately concludes that a Comprehensive Plan amendment is required, then the City would adopt the alternative conclusion of law as follows: The City concludes the proposed TOD-LMR (R-2) zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed zone is a permissible zone within the TOD Corridor Comprehemive Plan Map Designation and the City herewith incorporates and adopts the precautionary plan amendment conclusions of law herein below which demonstrates that the TOD-LMR (R-2) can be explained as an appropriate amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, 259 Page 16 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC D. The amendment complies with OAR 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule. Conclusions of Law: The City herewith incorporates and adopts its conclusions of law below regarding the Transportation Planning Rule and concludes the City the proposed zoning is consistent in all ways with those conclusions demonstrating compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule. OREGON TRANSPORTAVON PLANNING RULE Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12 SECTION 660-012-0060 (1) Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknovAedged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, the local government shad put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule to assure that allowed Land uses are consistent with the Identified function, rapacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, alc.) of the fatuity. A plan or Land use regulation amendment significantty affects a transportafion facility if it would: (a) Change the functional ciassificalion of an eAstlng or planned transportation facility (excfusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Change stardards inptementing a functional classificadon system. or [c) As measured at the end of the pierrrsig period identified in the adopted transportation system pian: (A) Afforw land uses or levels of devekwnont that would result In types or isveks oil taavel or access chat are inconsistent with 6he functional rlassifcarlJon of an existing or pea nned transportation facW.. (8) Reduce the performance of an e)dsdng at planned transportation facility below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive pian; or (C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facikty that is otherwise px>;ndbd t^, perfarm bc!o=1 tie ginimum norm !2 I,e rtinrfnrmr±nce aiamord Erienfifed in 1}g TSP cv comprehensive plan. Conclusions of Law (continued): The City concludes the proposed amendment from County General Industrial to City TOD-LMR (R-2) will not significantly affect a transportation facility based upon the Findings in Section IV which supports the following conclusions: • The proposed amendment will not change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility because the projected number of new residential trips each direction on all the streets used by the subject application is equal to the amount of industrial traffic that would be possible under the existing zoning. • The amendment is a minor map amendment and does not propose any changes to standards implementing the City's functional classification system. • From a trip generation potential standpoint, the proposed amendment does not allow uses that generate materially more traffic than the existing designation so nothing about the amendment will allow land uses or level of development that are inconsistent with the functional classification of existing and planned transportation facilities in the area that are already planned in the City's TSP to residential uses at the subject property. • From a trip generation potential standpoint, the proposed amendment does not allow uses that generate materially more traffic than the existing designation so nothing [ Ll 260 Page 17 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Constructian, LLC about the amendment would reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility below the minimum acceptable performance standards for facilities projected to meet adopted standards at the end of the planning period or worsen the performance of any facilities otherwise projected to exceed performance standards at the end of the planning period. 261 Page 18 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC VI CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PLAN AMENDMENT (PRECAUTIONARY) In an abundance of caution, the Applicant herewith provides conclusions of law addressing the Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria. Applicant believes the City could property interpret its Comprehensive Plan and development code to apply the requested zoning because the Evidence in Section 1I and the Findings of Fact in Section IV explain that the proposed TOD-LMR zoning district is an allowed zone in the TOD Corridor Plan designation. However, that evidence and findings also point up that the structure of the City's Plan results in some degree of ambiguity regarding the need for a Comprehensive Plan amendment in the context of the subject application requesting the 1'OD-LMR (R-2) zoning instead of a TOD-MMR (R-3) zone at the time of annexation. If the City (or the Courts on Appeal) were to conclude that a Comprehensive Plan amendment is required for the requested zone change, the Applicant herewith provides the following conclusions of law to he reached under each of the relevant substantive criteria which are recited verbatim and addressed below. The conclusions of law are supported by Applicants' evidentiary Exhibits at Section II and Findings of Fact in Section IV. The Conclusions of Law below are structured as an amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan in a manner that allows TOD-LMR (R-2) on the subject property instead of TOD-MMR(R-3). APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Chapter 17.96 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 17.96.500 Approval criteria. A recommendation or a decision to approve or to deny an application for an amendment to the comprehensive plan, or urban growth boundary shall be basad on written findings and conclusions that address the Following criteria: A. Approval of the request is consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals; C'tonelualon9 of Law: The City herewith incorporate and adopt the below conclusions of law with respect to each applicable statewide planning goal, as follows: Goal 1: Citizen Involvement To develop a citizen Involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process ... (balance omitted for brevJW Conclusions of Lain: The City concludes the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment is quasi-judicial in nature and therefore citizen involvement is assured by and through application of the City's adopted and acknowledged procedures for the conduct and noticing of quasi-judicial reviews, including noticing and public hearings. t 262 Page 19 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC Goal 2: Land Use Planning PART I — PLANNING To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions ... @glance omitted for brevity] Conclusions of Law: The City concludes that the subject application is quasi-judicial in nature and requires demonstration of compliance with predetermined criteria and approval of the requested plan map amendment requires substantial evidence to demonstrate each of the relevant criteria have been satisfied. The City herewith incorporates the balance of the conclusions of law addressing all other criteria applicable to the pian amendment, and concludes based thereupon, that adequate evidence exists in the application submittal and associated record to conclude all applicable criteria are satisfied. The City further concludes that the requested plan amendment is a narrow one from the standpoint of map designations between two residential designations that allow many of the same uses but will permit a modestly lower residential density on the subject property. Goal 3: Agricultural Lands To preserve and rnaWKaln agricultural lands...[baku;ce ornWad for breviky] Conclusions of Law: The City concludes the subject property is within its Urban Growth Boundary and is planned for urban residential use and is not, therefore, subject to Goal 3 protection. Goal 4: Forst Lands To conserve forest lards by imintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making poswb)a eoonon*ady eMdent forest practices that assure the continuous graving and harvesting or forest free species as the fending use on Barest land consistent with sound management of sod, air, water. and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture ... (balance om&ed for brevity] Conclusions of Law: The City concludes the subject property is within its UGB and is planned for urban residential use and the proposed amendment is not subject to Goal 4 protection. Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Meas, and Open Spaces To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces omitted for brevity] Conclusions of Law: The City concludes the subject property is not subject to any adopted Goal 5 protections and therefore the amendment from one residential designation to another will have no effect on the City's plan to achieve Goal 5. While not mapped on any identified inventories, a preliminary wetlands assessment indicates a portion of the site may contain wetlands in the area of the future Haskell Street extension; nothing about the plan amendment will alter the City's plans in its TSP to extend a higher order street in this location and the same will require further work to address this potential wetland issue. 263 Page 20 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. All waste and process discharges from future development, when combined with such discharges from existing developments shall not threaten to violate, or violate applicable state or federal environmental quality statutes, rules and standards. With respect to the air, water and land resources of the applicable air sheds and river basins described or included in state environmental quality statutes, rules, standards and implementation plans, such discharges shall not (1) exceed the carrying capacity of such resources, considering long range needs; (2) degrade such resources; or (3) threaten the availability of such resources ... [balance omitted forbrevltyj Conclusions of Law: Based upon the Findings of Fact in Section IV, the City concludes that the proposed amendment will allow for single-family residential development which will be required to comply with agency permits (such as NPDES. permits for stormwater) but the City and other agencies have standards in place to assure compliance and the development of the subject property and there is no evidence that the subject property is subject to unique circumstances that would be expected to make it infeasible to comply with applicable standards through the normal residential development review process. Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards To protect people and property from natural hazards ... (balance omrtied for brevity) Conclusions of Law: The City concludes that the subject property is not subject to any known specific natural hazards that require special plawting or implementation treasures except the general earthquake risks that exist in all of western Oregon and the same are adequately handled by applicable building codes. Goal 8: Recreational Needs To satisfy the recreational Heads of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for file siting of necessary recreational raciiities inriuding destination reso rts... [balance omitted forbrevityt Conclusions of Law: The City concludes the subject property has not been adopted into any local parks plans to achieve Goal 8. It is not known to contain any unique resources necessary to attain Goal 8 and the proposed amendment from one residential designation to another will have no appreciable impact on the City's ability to achieve Goal 8, Goal 9: Economic Development To provide adequate opportunilfes throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Cregon's citizens. Comprehensive plans and policies shall contribute to a stable and healthy economy In all regions of the state, Such plans shah be based on inventories of areas suitable for increased economic growth and activity after taking into consideration the health of the current economic base; materials and energy availability and cost: labor market factors; educational and technical training programs; availability of key public facilities: necessary support facilities; current market forces; location relative to markets; availability of renewable and non-renewable resources; availability of land; and pollution control requirements ... (balance omitted for brevity] Conclusions of Law: The subject amendment concerns two categories of residential development, and based thereupon, the City concludes that the proposed amendment will have no meaningful effect on the City' ability to achieve Goal 9. 264 Page 21 Flndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC Goal 10: Housing To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state ... [balance omitted for brevity] Conclusions of Law: Based upon the evidence and the Finding of Fact in Section N, the City concludes as follows with respect to Goal 10: • The land use pattern around the subject property is different from the pattern that existed when the site was contemplated for R-3 zoning (and later TOD-MMR). The site (together with the Quillen property to the south) is surrounded by single-family development and the TDD -LMR zoning represents a designation that will still supply needed housing at appropriate densities. • The City concludes that the actual delivered housing unit difference is expected to be on the order of 12 fewer dwelling units which is a negligible reduction in the context of the City's entire UGB. ■ Ultimately, the City concludes that this amendment is beneficial because it is expected to supply needed housing now rather than forcing a zoning designation the property owner does not want in the hopes that some future development may result in a small number of additional dwellings on the subject property. The Council concludes that it is has been many years since the City has amended its UGB for residential lands, and while currently underway, completion of that process is still several years in the future- Planning for the total UGB-wide housing needs can and must be fulfilled through that process. However, in the immediate term, the City is experiencing shortfalls of just the type of housing the Applicant wishes to construct and approval of the amendment herein is expected to deliver housing for which current needs exist. Goal 11: Public Faciltdos and Services To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public faciiides and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development ... lbahance omilted for brevty/j Conclusions of Law: Based upon the Evidence in Section 11 and the Findings of Fact in Section N, the City concludes the proposed amendment is located in an area where water, sewer, storm drainage, and streets are readily available to the property and future development can feasibly utilize such facilities. Moreover, the Council observes that the TOD-LMR designation would be expected to demand slightly less in the way of public facilities than would the TOD-MMR designation. Goal 12: Transportatlon To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system ... lbalance omitted for brevity) Conclusions of Law: The City concludes that OAR 660 Division 012 implements Goal 12 and OAR 660-012-0060 sets forth specific regulations for comprehensive plan map amendments and zone changes. The City herewith incorporates and adopts its conclusions of law addressing TPR herein above and based upon the same concludes that no significant impacts to the transportation system will occur as a result of the amendment. The City further concludes that TOD-LMR (R-2) would be expected to generate slightly fewer trips 265 Page 22 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC than would be generated under TOD-MMR (R-3) and this is another reason to conclude significant impacts to the transportation system are not expected. Goal 13: Energy Conservation To conserve energy ... [balance omitted for brevity] Conclusions of Law: The City concludes that the change between slightly different residential designations is such that the City's land use planning for energy conservation will be little affected by the proposed amendment. Goal 14: Urbanization To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities ... Nfance omitted forbrevityl Conclusions of Law: The City concludes the proposed amendment concerns a map designation change between residential categories with similar allowed uses. The City concludes the proposed TOD-LVIR designation is slightly less dense than the TOD-MMR zone but that it is still urban in nature and the actual expected yield difference between the two zones is approximately 12 units which is a nominal difference in the context of compliance with Goal 14 on citywide basis. Summary Conclusions of Law: In sum, the City concludes the proposed amendment from TOD-MMR (R-3) to TOD-LMR (R-2) is consistent in all ways with the Statewide Planning Goals. B. Approval of the request is uxrsistent with the Central Point comprehensive plan; Conclusions of Law: The City concludes criteria that require general compliance with the Comprehensive Plan does not automatically transform all the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan into decisional criteria for a quasi-judicial land use application, see Bennett vs. The City of Dallas. The City has reviewed its Comprehensive Plan and it finds that the language and context of only the following goals and policies are intended to function as approval criteria for the subject application: Housing Element Conclusion #1 Policy 2: Provide for a range of housing types, styles, and costs, Including single-family homes, condominiums, rental housing and mobile homes. The City concludes this policy is a sort of restatement of Goal 10 requirements to plan for a range of housing types and price ranges. The proposed amendments will not preclude advancement of this policy. The City TOD-LMR district still allows for multiple housing types and the stated intent of the Applicant is to supply housing at a price point (for new housing) that is very limited in Central Point that will provide more options for younger families looking for their first or second home and older residents looking to downsize. Land Use Element Policy 5: Continue to ensure that long-range planning and zoning reflects the need to locate the highest densities and greatest numbers of residents in the closest possible proximity to shopping, employment, major public facilities, and public transportation corridors. Page 23 266 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC The City concludes that this policy is a major reason why this amendment is now appropriate. When the subject property was contemplated for the R-3 zoning, there was substantially more employment land planned nearby to the north (almost twice the acreage). That area is now primarily zoned residential instead. As such, advancement of this policy, can be better achieved as part of the legislative UGB review for housing to locate larger high density areas nearer to areas where expanding (rather than contracting) employment areas are planned and allow this property to meet current market needs for smaller single-family development. Moreover, because of the Railroad, the subject site is over half a mile from practical physical access to the nearest RVTD route. C. For urban growth boundary amendments findings dernonsirate that adequate public services and transportation networks to serve the property are either available, or identified for construction M the city's public facilities master plans (major and minor amendments); and Conclusions of Law: The City concludes the proposed amendment does not concern a UGB amendment. D. The amendment complies with OAR 6MO12.QQ of the Transportation Planning Rule. Conclusions of Law: The City herewith incorporates and adopts the above conclusions of law below conclusions of law addressing the Transportation Planning Rule under the zone change criteria. The Council further concludes that a significant effect on the transportation system is not expected where the amendment involves a modest reduction of residential density from TDD -MMR to TOD-LMR because the trip generation potential is expected to go down. W SUMMARY OF APPLICANTS' STIPULATIONS Applicants herewith agree to stipulate to the following, which they agree to observe if the same are attached as conditions to approval of the subject site plan review application: Stipulation 1: [RESERVED- The applicant did not idents the needfor specific stipulations for the subject application but may supplement the initially submitted findings with certain stipulations if the same are found to be necessary during the course of the review process] 267 Page 24 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC VIII ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS; DECISION Based upon the record and the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of taw, it is concluded that the applications for Annexation and Zone Change are consistent with the requirements of all of the relevant substantive approval criteria which have been addressed hereinabove. It is further concluded that if a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is determined to be necessary by the City (or by the Courts on Appeal) the proposal can be found to comply with all relevant City of Central Point criteria for Comprehensive Plan amendment as provided as a precautionary submittal herein above. Respectfully submitted on behalf of Applicants and Property Owners, CSA Planning, Ltd. Jay Harland Principal May 9, 2017 268 Page 25 6 I i - c WYI M[L'JVI� liY 269 YLYO 519 Subject Lots Tax Lots � � City Limits M1144LUrban Growth :Fvooi;: Boundary —i Railroad City Comp Plan Neighborhood Convenience Center TOD Corridor - High Density Res, Low Density Res, Civic -Parks and Open Space Existing Comprehensive Plan Annexation / Zone Change to Bob Fellows Construction, LLC W+E 37 -2W -11C tax lots 8300 & 8400 S ® 400 200 0 400 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. ourea: Tann nQ, i.r ; JIc wn ainry ryo eno-a 270 EXHIBIT 4 CIVIC °r Hig Density I � 5t I ;f GR High Density iVeighhorhoad Neighlsorhood ConVenfencs Center �y Convenience Center A� � 1 I Parks and 0 en Space CHENEY LR d ' eny� J I -w MAC CT o o►� LINDSEY Law Density CT � rIMUrHY ST TDD Corridor � f TOP— Low Density I TARA CR; LAVENDER LN I UJ Z sA I _ �JESSICA CR I I p Z Y Subject Lots Tax Lots � � City Limits M1144LUrban Growth :Fvooi;: Boundary —i Railroad City Comp Plan Neighborhood Convenience Center TOD Corridor - High Density Res, Low Density Res, Civic -Parks and Open Space Existing Comprehensive Plan Annexation / Zone Change to Bob Fellows Construction, LLC W+E 37 -2W -11C tax lots 8300 & 8400 S ® 400 200 0 400 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. ourea: Tann nQ, i.r ; JIc wn ainry ryo eno-a 270 EXHIBIT s 271 ■ p •a EXHIBIT 6 Subject Lots City Zoning! C -2(m) Tax Lots Civic –+—� Railroad - EC County Zoning GC LMR - M-1 MMR Os R-1-6 R-1,8 Proposed Zoning Map Annexation / Zone Change N Bob Fellows Construction, LLC w+E 37-2W-11 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 S U300 150 0 300 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd, 273 c: ROJNANCE NO. 11 i3 EXHIBIT 7f, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING'1'T- E CEN'T'RAI POINT COMPRF1H ,NSIVI1' PIAN FOR AREA. ti 2 [fflLfty I. The City of Central Point ("City") is authorized under Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) Chapter 197 to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans and intplementiaig ordinances consistent with the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals. 2. The City has coordinated its planning efforts with the State in accordance with ORS 197.040(2)(e) and OAR 660-030-0060 to assure compliance with goals and compatibility with City and County Comprehensive Plans. 3. Pursuant to authority granted by the City charter and the Oregon Revised Statutes, the City has determined to amend the Central Point Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map whizh was originally adopted on August 29, 1980, and has been amended at various times since then. 4. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in CPMC Chapter 1.24 and Chapter 17.96, the City has conducted the following duly advertised public hearings to consider the proposed amendments: (a) Citizen's Advisory Committee hearing oa February 26, 1998. (b) Planning Commission hearings on May 5th and May 19th, 1998. (c) City Council hearing on August 6, 1998. (d) Accepted written comments through September 11, 1998 Now, therefore; THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Sa-L At its public hearing on August 6, 1998, the City Council received the findings of the Citizen's Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission, reviewed the City Staff Report, and received public testimony from all interested persons. Furthermore, written comments were accepted by the City through September 11, 1998, Based upon all the information received, the City Council adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth by City Staff, and based upon the same, the City Council finds that there is sufficient public need and justification for the proposed changes, and the proposed changes are hereby adopted entirely. 1 - Ordinance No. 1'� Ct3 (091798) 274 Sec' « 2. Tlic (ily C:'ompt-chensive Plan andzollinM Map are hereby anicnde:d ws set forth on Exhibits "A" & "13". including till m',it7s an(1 aMICinl1Q.nts to such exhibits, which are attached hereto and by Ibis rel'ormcc incorporated herein. Section 3. The City Administrator is directed to conduct post acknowledgmcnt procedures dewed in ORS 197,610 et seq. upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and changes to the Zoning Map, Section . This update being necessary fior the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfttre of the: City of Central Point, Oregon, and base([ ulxm the need to conclude associated comprehensive plait Gunendment procedures, second reading of this ordinance is hereby waived and an emergency is declared to exist, and this ordinance shall be in full Force and effect imnhediate[y upon its passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. Passed by the Council and signed by mcg in authenticatiori of its passage this __a! day of 998. Mayor Rttsty McGrath ATTEST; Ci€y €representative Approved by nhe this qk day of _, 1998, V�� Mayor Dusty McGrath 2 - Or'dinanc:e No. �"1� ----- (091-798) 275 EXHIBIT A Comprehensive Plan amendments include the redistribution of certain land uses within the Urban Growth Boundary and Comprehensive Plan text amendments to reflect the proposed redistribution of land uses. Zoning Map changes are consistent with the new land use designations. The land use or map amendments are described as follows for .Area # 2: Change the land use designation and zoning of Area 2 on the attached map from Light Industrial (M-1) to Low Density Residential (R-1-6), Nigh Density Residential (R-3) and General Commercial (C-4). 276 0 ti cn HI 10 4Z 277 EXHIBIT B PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE PIAN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (SEC1`ION VI) HISTORY OF CENTRA POINT The impact of the railroad on the community lits-bee,t r>>as significant in the past. It was primarily responsible for the short life of the Old Central Point and the new direction of community growth and development after akwe the 1880s, The railroad is still very remains important to 6te wood products ittdt&ry and other industries located along it but to a lesser event today than[n the past, a rovill _.._.:_. __ 3. The City shaU rely -heavily -err require property owners to master -plan the land use and design of new developments to control and minimize noise through such requirements as site orientation, buffering, distance separation, insulation, or other design featwes. ECONOMICS (SECTION IX) 2. Continue to emphasize the need to maximize the potential of major existing facilities that represent major public investments, but are presontly under-utilized. (Emphasis on railroad, highway 99, and the 1-5 Freewsy and the oirpart reiAtc-d to indastrial deveiopment, and Pine StreetfHead Road for commercial, office -professional and tourist development,) Pg. IX -24 278 ENERGY UTILIZATION & CONSERVA'T'ION (SECTION X) 4-TRAN �3RT.A T'i 1,1- j„L I'F D ��yi R[�Y C'C)NS1 B VLL1 L M Policies: C. The City will continue to plan for new industrial development but rather than limit development to land that is located adjacent to rail facilities, -arid the City will also encourage industrial development in the vicinity of highways and airports-enevgrtf- freierit-rai4I'reigl nsp©rt. Pg.X-21 CIRCULATION/TRANSPORTATION (SECTION XI) •.. Paragraphs I & 2 The Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad (formerly Southern Pacific Railway) serves the Central Point area and parallels Highway 99 t1trOUgh the cuuunutiity. The railroad played a key role in the City's development during the late 1$00s and into this century. The original City grid pattern of streets was laid out shortly after the rail line was built. The railroad no longer provides passenger service to Central Point or the Rogue Valley, the Central Print depot is not luzigor in existence. I low -ever, the rail facilities still playa sI 44ettt l role in the area's economy and serve the industries that are located along its route mostly within the present City limits, n , • 3 studies , di fed .,,.., .t___ .. � ; +4r[Vu.] ilLL3L[L�ra iLi. Vtir iYEL3i�i faetltt.es that ... - � i ,recent Him iget have L_...i rrrxaia-rfttes fer`s#r}rngpr�-mucleetrxtit� item. olic'es: 15, I+%x4mize Retain the i°destrial potential of the existing industrial land uses along railroad facilities as proposed in this Comprehensive Pian. ORRECTIVE lu zQBLzM M-2) K • Q o • . _ A sutt-imary of sorne of the major considerations are: 279 Ensuring that ee residential neighborhoods that are located +mttn— tttely adjacen! to the railroad right-of-way satisfy safety requirements and accepted irzcl7r,s°try .3tcrr�clru ds fttr noise mitigation, LAND USE (SECTION XII) Policies 10, Where residential development is proposed on parcels adjacent to a railroad, a sub -area master plan will be required by the City which could result in subsequent rezoning or other acceptable methods to provide effective land use buf eying and minimize threats to safely andlar duality oflife for local residents. Po [cies: I . Max4rnize-4te Retain existing iadustrial development potmt6&H4 along the Highway 991-9�m4l&D €k railroad corridor through the. City by providing 4s teEAr� yew; ` 900, including adequate flexibility for industrial expansion. beyond -2000. 280 DATE: May 19, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, Planning Director SUBJECT: Planning Department Response to Correspondence Received from DLCD & ODOT The following is a discussion and analysis of the letters Central Point has received from two State agencies regarding the proposed City-wide plan amendments and zone changes being contemplated. Staff will attempt to address each issue as it is presented in the letters received and then provide the Commission with evidence to enable you to arrive at a decision. DLCD Correspondence The first statement made by DLCD staff is that indas&144 commercial and residential acreages need to "balance" so that the city continues to have a hverdy year supply of land for each use. Statewide Planning Goals 9,10 and 14 are cited as the legislative requirements for a twenty year supply and it is pointed out that Central Point's proposal will decrease the amount of industrial land by 104 acres and increase both commercial land (by 32 acres) and residential land by 94 acres. The state asks that justification be provided to ensure the City will have enough of a land use mix to meet future employment needs with its industrial and commercial land inventory (as defined by Oregon Administrative Ruk 660-09-0250) and future housing needs (as defined by OAR 660-09-010). The belief is that failing to balance jobs and housing will lead to an increase in work-related vehicle trips and the corresponding failure to meet regional transportation objectives. There are no specific statements in any of the Goals regarding the "balance" DLCD discusses however Goal 9 does encourage municipalities to provide an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types and locations for a variety of industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies. For nearly twenty years the City of Central Point has regularly experienced, residential prosperity ... not shared by the commercial and industrial sectors... A major objective of this (Comp) Plan is to promote a greater emphasis on commercial and industrial growth ... (refer to Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Economics Page IX -14). The land use designations that the City is now proposing to change were created in the 1980's. Of the three land use categories, the industrial land has been the slowest to develop and in most cases has been farmed or remained vacant throughout the planning period. Recent attempts to develop industrial land west of Interstate 5 have met with significant local opposition. Page 122 281 In contrast, the City has received two separate requests in the last 60 days to annex a total of 50 acres of industrially designated land east of I-5 for immediate development. It is the City's conviction that the potential for marketing industrial land east of I-5 (and in the vicinity of the airport) is greater than it is west of 1-5 in spite of the land's proximity to the railroad. In response to OAR 660-09-015, the City has not only identified industrial and commercial sites (in Area #3) that could reasonably be expected to locate or expand in the planning area ... and likely to be needed, but has identified sites for which there is now a development demand. The letter from Bear Creek Orchards, Inc. (which was read into the public record on May 5, 1998) also substantiates the City's analysis and findings. Over the years, Jackson County has received authorization from the State to develop the White City industrial complex which is also served by the railroad. Heavier industrial uses have found the area more desirable due to the number of large vacant parcels with ample infrastructure and no municipal taxes. When viewed in a regional and historic context, Central Point has an adequate supply of industrially designated land and a net reduction of 104 acres does not materially diminish this supply. In fact, DLCD has previously stated to City staff that light industry often generates higher numbers of employees than heavy industrial uses_ The RVMPO Regional Transportation Plan, prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. speaks to the issue of regional land use development patterns (RVMPO RTP, Page XIII -1). The Plan states that, evaluations and research conducted in Oregon and elsewhere suggests that a mix of land uses involving residential and commercial activity in adjoining areas can contribute to lower travel demand than a development scheme with more widely -separated uses. This is one of the reasons the City wishes to develop residential land in closer proximity to its do :?",' tovi . o3i• m--r.^.ial bus.n.: ss dist-ict and is also p opos-Ing sl' all-scalu L:0Li inercial uses near prospective residential subdivisions in Areas 1 and 4. It should be noted that industrial land uses generate fewer vehicle trips than do commercial uses (reference the OTE Manual). Therefore the balance between residential and commercial uses is more significant in terms of lowering travel demand than the balance between residential and industrial uses. There is a 3:1 ratio between the residential and commercial zone changes being proposed. DLCD staff have identified Area 1 as perhaps one of the best sites in the region for rail - oriented industrial development. The reasons given to substantiate this claim include the area's size; prouimity to state highways and the Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad; and the site meets federal and state air quality standards. The Oregon Rail Freight Plan is cited twice to emphasize the value that can be added to rail -served industrial land and the inherent compatibility problems created by residential uses located adjacent to railroad tracks. Parallel streets and buffers are recommended in the Freight Plan. DLCD does not elaborate upon its air quality statement but it can be assumed they are referring to PM 10 (Particulate Matter) related issues as opposed to CO (Carbon Monoxide). The Rogue Valley COG has Air Quality Modeling "Grids" which identify PM 10 Exceedences in Medford and west of White City (refer to RVCOG map). Projections to the year 2015 show no significant deterioration within the grid area west of White City but do add several grids to the Medford core area. Pafic 1123 282 City staff would argue that there are various other rail -oriented industrial sites, particularly in White City which meet federal and state air quality standards and are equally, if not more valuable for development. After speaking with Central Oregon & Pacific General Manager Bill Libby, it was confirmed that the COP's service to the Rogue Valley is increasing in support of bulk commodities or for loads longer than those permitted on highways. Historically, lumber and wood products have been the principal commodities, however support manufacturing products such as glue, resin, wood chips, methanol, propane and cement are also transported into the region. COP's Central Point clients are the mill and Grange CO-OP. The Rail carrier has most recently added new clients Certainteed and BOC Gases to its service in White City. The COP comes off its main line at Tolo for daily service to White City. The last item raised by DLCD involved the Transportation Planning Rule, regional objectives and the traffic analysis performed by the Rogue Valley COG. The concerns expressed have to do with the effect land use changes will have on the number and length of automobile trips and whether changes will make if more difficult for the region to meet its VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) objectives. As the Commission is aware, Hardey Engineering & Associates performed a Transportation Impact Study which was submitted at the last meeting. Excerpts from this study are included in the Commission packet and the conclusions are similar to those of the COG EMME/2 model analysis. Hardey states that, based on the results of their analysis, they believe that the proposed zone changes decrease the overload on the surrounding street system in comparison to the existing zoning (Page 6). Furthermore, all intersections are expected to operate at better levels ofservice under the proposed zone change (refer to Table on Page 5). ODOT Correspondence ODOT responded to the Hardey TIS, have no concerns with the amendment to Policy 9 of the City/County Urban Growth Boundary Policy Agreement, and concur with the engineering analysis. They have concurred with the discussion of Rail Issues raised by Jim Hinman of DLCD but are primarily concerned that the City recognize that once rail - oriented industrial sites are gone, they cannot be replaced. Conelasion The issues raised by the State are not complex but require analysis and evidence to justify the City's decision. The Commission may receive additional testimony at the public hearing which could support or result in the modification of this proposal. If you believe the issues raised have been adequately dealt with, the public hearing may be closed and a decision (recommendation) rendered. Paye 124 283 EXHIBIT 7G ORDINANCE NO. /8/5 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TONING CODE TEXT AND MAPS TO CREATE A TRANSIT -ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) DISTRICT AND TOD CORRIDOR DISTRICT RECITALS: 1. The City of Central Point (" City') is authorized under Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) Chapter 197 to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances consistent with the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals. 2. The City:has coordinated its planning efforts with the State in accordance with ORS 197.0400)(0) and OAR 660-030-0060 to assure compliance with goals and compatibility with City and County Comprehensive Plans. 3. Pursuant to authority granted by the City charter and the Oregon Revised Statutes, the City has determined to amend the Central Point Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map which was originally adopted onAugust 29, 1980, and has been amended at various times since then. 4: Pursuant to the requirements set forth in CPMC Chapter 1.24 and Chapter 17.96, the City has conducted the following duly advertised public hearings to consider the proposed amendments: (a) Citizen's Advisory Committee hearing on August 29, 2000. (b) Planning Commission hearings on September 19 and October 3, 2000. (c) City Council hearings on October 26, November 16 and 30, 2000. Now, thwefom; THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section L At its public hearing on November 30, 2000, the City Council received the findings of the Citizen's Advisory Committec and the Planning Commission, received the City Staff Report, and received public testimony from all interested persons. Based upon all the moon received, the City Council adopts the findings and conclusions set forth in the TOb CPA/ZC Proposal, Applicable Review Criteria, and based upon the same, the City Council finds that there is sufficient public need and justification for the proposed changes, and the proposed changes are hereby adopted entirely. SaWan ?. The City Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map are hereby amended as set forth on Exhibit "A" the Central Point TOD Design Requirements and. Guidelines, with changes through November 30, 2000 including all maps and attachments to said exhibit, which are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. i - Ordinance No. A1ST (113000 ) 284 Section 3 • The City Administrator is directed to conduct post acknowledgment procedures defined in QRS 197,610 et seq. upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and changes to the Zoning Map. Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 14*4'- day of �Ck .2000. M—a or Hill Walton ATTEST: Ld'� City Representative Approved by me this 14 A day of QtcaoSWC . 2000. bIaym Bill Wal ton. 2 - Ord,, nAnce. No. / g (113000) 285 • A (i��l� �t A� 286 PURPOSE For a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Zoning Code Text and Map Amendment to establish Tai] (Transit Oriented Development) design requirements and guidelines in specific areas within the city of Central Point Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The purposes of the TOD District -and Corridor are W: • Use land efficiently; • Provide a diversity of housing type$; • Provide a complementary mix of housing, service, and civic uses; • Encourage transit, walking and bicycling; • Retain and enhance envinmmentsily sensitive areas; and • Provide :open space. LOCATION The affected properties are located in the central and northwest portions of the Central Point UGB as shown in Figure 1 and described in the background section of this application, beginning on page 9. The proposal involves two areas: 1. TOD District located in the:noJrthW t.portion°of the Central Point UGB; and 2. TOD Corridor located along Rogue Valley Highway 99 within the current city limit Central Point 287 Draft TOD CPA/ZC Proposal Page -1 City of Gni PointLeWnd * M m uoe CRY Unt Vicinity Map adwd — $,.0 = TOD01WW oceDe.r 6, 2000 unro,r "`—"' TODGorrtlw Cfm* mob CertEd Pont 288 A Figure 1 ORDINANCE 1815 ADOPTED DECEMBER 14, 2000 INTRODUCTION In August 1999, the Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) completed a Transit Oriented Development and Transit Corridor Development Strategies report of the Rogue Valley Transit District. The purpose of the project was to create amended land use strategies to develop land more efficiently and promote transit use in a number of communities, including Central Point. Model land use ordinances and design guidelines were an important result of the project. The project recommended that eight "TOD Districts" should be established in selected locations in the Rogue Valley. One of these TOD Districts Is proposed for the northwest portion of the City of Central Point. It is proposed to feature a mix of medium and high- density residential uses, commercial services, civic uses, and paries and open space. A key element for the district Includes accommodations for future transit service coupled with design features to encourage walking and bicycling. To further enhance transit servibe In thb Rogue Valley, "Transit Corridors" were also recommended to help support transit service along major transit routes, such as Highway 99. The same mix of land uses for the districts is recommended for the corridors. However, it is Moognized that the corridors are more fully developed, and that change to transit should be accomplished over time, and on a voluntary basis by property owners. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code text and maps are Intended to promote TOD design for the district and corridor areas in the city that are based upon the model RVCOG code and design guidelines. The amendments are summarized In the following pages. The complete text can be found in the exhibits as noted below. Compr ensivs plan Amend/lrlle #9 The proposed Comprehensive Pian amendments include a revised Comprehensive Plan Map that shows the location of the TOD District, the TOD Corridor, and a brief sectio" of new tent that Introduces the TOD design concept. Please refer to the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map in Figure 2 and the draft plan text in Exhibit A — Central Paint Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Central Point 289 Drift TOD CPArZ.e Proposal Pane -3 IZoning Code Amendments Land Use DesionaBons and Procedures Theproposed Zoning Code amendments include new code sections containing requirements and standards for the new zoning designations for the TOD District and new procedural requirements for major development applications within it. A summary of the zoning designations changes is provided below. Please refer to the proposed Zoning Map in Figure 3 and the draft Zoning Code sections In Exhibit B — Zoning Code Amendments for the complete version of the proposed amendments. Definitions for new or unfamiliar terminology used in the proposed TOD Zoning Code And Design Standards can also -be found In Exhibit B., Man Standards Proper design and orientation of development becomes increasingly important as densities 'increase and different uses are closer together. In addition, much of the success to alternative transportation modes, such as walking and transit, relies on creating environments which are pleasant and convenient for people to use. Building design, setbacks, orientation, landscaping, etc. all playa part in providing these pedestrian friendly environments- Design Standards in Exhibit C are also proposed to be part of the Zoning Code amendments. The TOD design standards address: • Circulation and Access Standards for streets, public access, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation; • Site Design Standards for retaining important on-site features, compatibility with existing structures, parking, landscaping, lighting, signs, and service areas; • Common Open Space Design Standards for location, size, and design; and • Building Design Standards regarding density transition, adjacent landscaping, architecture, and ether design techniques to enhance compatibility between different uses within the development. The nsiture of the amendments varies between the TOD District, proposed for the largely unincorporated area in the northwest comer of the UGB,'and the TOD Corridor, located along Rogue Valley Highway 99. Therefore, the description of the amendments is presented in separate subsections below. Central Point Draft TOD CPA2C Proposal Page - 4 290 `,�.+:�, �.5^ AAQi uauni���' nr I:mvr's1 F y i; • - • r�l��llllll NNIrNlll Nommill ti::u fz14� all LAWNiia+► � �� w OAF IIII lillis' �oiq ar UWFT NI r9IM G It wluw Zonina Mao En TOD DISTRICT Development Concept The concept for the proposed development is a Transit Oriented Development (TOD). A TOD is a mixed-use development comprised of residential, commercial, civic, and recreational land uses designed in a way that increases ridership on transit systems, provides a pedestrian oriented environment, provides a diversity of housing types, improves public infrastructure investment, enhances property value, and provides an identifiable sense of community and a better quality of life. A system of pedestrian and bicycle friendly streets and pathways are intended to link uses within the development, Provide a network of connections to a bus transit hub near the center of the site, and connect with the community of Central Point. The residential zones will allow a combination of single-family detached housing, town homes, condominiums, apartment buildings, apartments over ground floor commercial and office space, and a senior center. The commercial and office space are planned to provide employment opportunities and services such as retail sales and service, professional offices, and daycare to the residents of Central Point. The parks and open spaces are planned to be an integral part of the TOD District. All residents of the TOD will be able to walk or ride a bicycle to a park or open spare within one-quarter mile of their residence. The parks and open spaces are intended to provide opportunities for passive and active recreation and to protect and enhance natural resources and habitat: The new TOD District designation is intended to compliment existing lana uses within the District. TOD-LMR zoning is proposed east of Hwy 99 and north of Crater High. TOD-MMR, TOD-EC, and TOD-GC are proposed south of Crater High and compliment the proposed TOD zoning west of Hwy 99. This concentration of uses Is intended to strengthen and anchor the western end Central Point's CBD. Land Use Designation Summary The proposed Comprehensive Pian and Zoning Map 'designations for the TOD District are: • Residential (TOD) This category would include three residential designations with densities ranging from 6 to 30+ Units per acre, TOD-LMR, - Low Mix ResidenVal Zone TOD-MMR - Medium Mix Residential Zone TOD-HMI - High Mix Residential/Commercial Zone • Employment (TOD) — Comprehensive Plan Centrld Point 293 Draft TOD CPA/ZC Proposai Pape - 7 Two commercial designations are proposed which will be compatible with and supportive of the transit -oriented district. TOD-EC - Employment Commercial Zone TOD-GC - General Commercial Zone • Civic (TOD) - Comprehensive Plan TOD-C Zone will apply to civic uses such as government offices, schools, and community centers are the primary uses intended in this district. • Open Space (TOD) - Comprehensive Plan TOD-OS Zone is intended to provide a variety of outdoor and recreation amenities. Table 1 Land Use Summary - TOD District fZone 0sslgnefi0" Acrwpe (TOD) LMR MMR HMR Employment EC GC Skil C Own Sow* OS 129 53 53 37 27 Dewily I/nAWAcm 6-12 16-32 30+ NIA NIA NIA NIA Resldootial TOO TOD-LMR - Low Mix Residential Location The TOD-LMR designation is proposed to be located in the north, west, and southwest portions of the TOO District (Figure 3). The lower density in these areas is intended to Centrtll point 294 Draft Too CPAIZC Proposal Page - 8 I provide a suitable transition between the district and the low density residential uses outside of the district. Land Uses and Building Types I The TOD-LMR designation will allow single-family detached dwellings, single-family dwellings with 0 -foot setbacks, and lower density multiple family dwellings. Commercial or industrial uses are not allowed in this zone, Density I The required density range will be 6 to 12 units per acre. TOD-MMR - Medium Mix Residential Location The TOD-MMR designation Is proposed to be located between the LMR and the higher ' density/intensity uses in the center of the TDD District Figure 3). The moderate density in these areas is intended to continue the transition from lower density residential uses on the perimeter of the TOD District to the more densely developed center of the ' district. Land Uses and Building Types I The TDD -MMR designation will allow single-famlly dwellings with 0 -foot setbacks, and a full range of multiple family dwellings. Commercial or industrial uses are not allowed in this zone. Density ' The required density range will be 16 to 32 units per acre. TOD-HMR - Hlah Mix ResldwidaY ntmerclal t Location , The TOD-HMR designation is proposed to be located in the center of the TOD District, along Haskell Road, and in the Central Business District on a section of Manzanita and Oak Street (Figure 3). Land Uses and Building Types The only residential uses In the TOD-HMR designation will be a range of multiple family dwellings. Because of the higher residential densities, support activities, such as retail ' sales and service, professional offices, and daycare are permitted in addition to multiple family residences. Central Point Draft TOD CPA2C Proposal Page - 9 295 Density The required density will be a minimum of 30 units per acre. 1 Employment (TOD) TOD-EC — Emplovment Commercial Location The TOD-EC designation is proposed to be located on the east and west side of Rogue Valley Highway 99 and north of Crater Higher School and on Pine Street from Haskell Road to North a Street (Figure 3). These designations primarily reflect existing development and uses. Having employment, retail, and service activities with convenient transit availability is an important element of the TOD. Land Uses and Building Types Commercial uses are the primary permitted activities. Multiple family uses are also permitted above the ground floor, and civic and open space uses may also be allowed. Industrial activities are not permitted. Density There are no minimum density or commercial floor area requirements. TOD-43C — General Commercial Location The TOD-GC designation is proposed to be located on the east side of Rogue Valley Highway 99 north of Pine Street (f=igure 3). Similar to the EC designation, the GC designation pnmanly reflects existing development and uses. Convenient transit access is an important characteristic of this area. Land Uses and Building Types The emphasis of this designations shifts from the commercial/residential focus of the EC designation to one, which includes industrial activities and excludes residential and ■ Civic uses. I: A,�iaJ IThere are no minimurn density or commercial/industrial floor area requirements. Central Point 296 Draft TOD CPA= Proposal Page - 10 Civic (TOD) Location The TOD-C designation is proposed to be located in the center of the TOD District, the Crater High School property, and the Mae Richardson Elementary School propel, The TOD-C designation is also located in the vicinity of Pine Street between North 6' and 7h and along Oak Street between Zn° and 3`d (Figure 3). Land Uses and Building Types The intent of this desigr'♦ation is to provide necessary civic uses for the community, such as schools, post offices, public offices, and similar uses. The uses allowed are proposed to be compatible with the residential neighborhoods that generally surround them. Institutions, such as colleges and hospitals, which can have a wide range of potential impacts, are subject to conditional use review. Open Space (TOD) Location The TOD-OS designation is proposed to be located along Griffin and Jackson Creeks as well as the north -central portion of the TOD District. TOD-OS is also located in downtown Central Point between Laurel and Manzan€ta Streets and North 6s' and North 7"' Streets (Figure 3). Land Use; snd B+ullding Types The intent of this designation is to provide necessary open space for the community and protection of environmentally sensitive areas. The uses allowed are proposed to be compatible with and complement the residential neighborhoods that generally surround them. Only park quid Open space uses are permitted. TOD CORRIDOR Development Concept The TOD Corridor Zoning designation is intended to promote efficient land development and the increased use of transit as proposed In the 1999 Transit Oriented Design and Transit Corridor Development Strategies for the Rogue Valley Transportation District Report. In the context of the Rogue Valley region, the Central Point TOD Corridor will be one of several bus transit corridors which form links to a network of destinations. The Increased densities along these corridors provides the ridership needed to commit funds to Increase service frequency making bus transit a more viable means of transportation. In addition to the TOD District, the corridor is another important link in what is envisioned to be a region -wide system to increase reliance on public transit and decrease use of the automobile. Genual Point 297 Draft TOD CPA/ZC Proposal Page -11 The TOD Corridor stretches from Pine Street to Beall Lane and include properties on both sides of Hwy 99. Hwy 99 is a proposed future transit/bus route. The TOD Corridor overlay design standards work in tandem with the overlay zoning. The design standards address issues such as circulation, building design, site design, and open spaces. The Intent is to create pedestrian oriented development areas that provide opportunities to use multiple forms of transit and have convenient access to quality open spaces. Land Use DesignsUon Summary The TOD Corridor includes the TOD-GC. TOD-EC, and TOD-MMR designations described earlier under the TOD District information. These uses include medium density and multifamily housing, commercial, and industrial uses. The Corridor Is not proposed to have the TOD Civic or Open Space designations. The existing zoning designations and the corresponding optional TOD Corridor zoning districts are listed in Table 2 and shown in Figure 3. The major difference from the TOD MUM is that the existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations in the TOD Corridor aro proposed to remain and the new TOD designations represent pp torraf standards that may be applied in lieu of the existing requirements. The decision of which set of standards to use rests with the property owners. The TOD Corridor zoning designations will generally allow propeity owners to develop tlidir properties more intenaively and with greater options, including mixing iisfas such as commercial and residential. The potential for greater densities and mixed uses can create a more viable neighborhood based on a variety of housing types and commercial or industrial activities. Central Point 298 Draft TOD CPA/ZC Proposal Page -12 Table 7 :and Use Summitry - TOO Corridor Existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Option*/ WD Corridor- Comprehensive Designations I Plan and Zoning Drs/pnatfons Residential R-1-8 -- Residential, Single Family District (8,000 sq. ft, min. lot size) R-2 — Residential, Two Family District (8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size) R-3 — Residentlal, Multiple Family District (6,000 sq. ft. min. lot size) Comnwclsl C2 — Commercial - Professional C-3 _ Downtown Business District C4 — Tourist and Cie Professional District C-5 — Thoroughfare Commercial District industrial M-1- Industrial District M-2 — Industrial General District TOD-MMR _ Medium Mix Residential TOD-LMR — Medium Mix Residential TOO -MMR — Medium Mix Residential TOD-HMR High Mix Residential TOD-EC Employment Comrmerdal TOD-EC — Emilbymant Commercial TOD-GC-- General Commercial TOD-GC — TOD-GC — General Commercial General Commercial IJ i i 1 Central Point Draft TOD CPAJZC Proposal ' Page -13 299 EXHIBIT 8 ANNEXATION PETITION The undersigned hereby request and consent to the annexation to the City of Central Point, Oregon, of the real property contiguous thereto described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part of the within petition. By their signature hereto, the undersigned certify that they are either "owners' of land in the territory proposed to be annexed as described in Exhibit "A", or are "electors" registered in the territory proposed to be annexed as described in Exhibit "A". This petition, containing the request and consent to said annexation, must be filed with the Central Point City council on or before the date of the public hearing to be held upon the proposed annexation pursuant to ORS 222.120. "Owner" is defined by ORS 222.120 as meaning the legal owner of record or, where there is a recorded land contract which is in force, the purchaser thereunder. If there is multiple ownership in a parcel of land, each consenting owner shall be counted as a fraction of the same extent as the interest of the owner in the land bears in relation to the interest of the other owners, and the same fraction shall be applied to the parcers land mass for purposes of the consent petition. If a corporation owns land in a territory proposed to be annexed, the corporation shall be considered to be the individual owner of that land. "Elector" is defined in said statute as an individual qualified to vote under Article Il, Section 2 of the Oregon Constitution, which in turn requires that the individual be 18 years of age or older, a resident of the area in question, and registered to vote as required by applicable state law. Furthermore, ORS 222.270(2) requires that electors petitioning for annexation be registered in the territory proposed to be annexed. 300 lienar ar Wane/Address PropertyOwner lure —Vile _ ibb Fellows fnrrstmllon lu Mcph 7 rf --� 7 ' iCentral PointOR91502 lenlol PointO Prope�OwnQr k- 300 ED(HIBIT "A" A page I of 3 Ame�iTitle Var1 IN rhr IF I,n-WEV F—fly r111er recording return in 130B FELLOWS CONS I RUC -110,14, LLi , AN OREGVN LIhIIITD LIA61LITY COINIPANI' 2950 PHILLIPS " - _.— Central Point, OR 47502 Until a Change is requested all lax statements eholl be sent to The Following address: BOB ITLLOWS CONS'l-RUCfION, LLC: AN OREGON LL,{ITED UABiLITY COP4PANY 2'150 PHILLIPS _ C`:q!R1f(! ul-OR Fccrow No. AP0704707 rms SPACE. RESFRVI „1 �m •a, Ra a n5 2004-038981 R-wO .:,,,• • ;Ir.-;,, ;; rT,wr, P7f0812004 02:30:00 PPA ss�ossu+shun Total:S21.00 illl�llll�Il IlilII�III�IIIIII�iIIIIIIhlIII 01041963200400389810010011 I ,L, Ini..ns a,n.n rm,nn n,.� mr �.,rao„ co,wr r!nyo" arab' Ihttll,v n,fl,aw,anl ,tl,nllrHtl n,,,in tl'u •.car.M! In Ih, Clrra ,attlN, NathlPrns 9e�a211 �aUllly Clnrx STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED LOLA fir, ALBRIGHT, Graufor(s) hereby convey and warrant to BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, AN OREGON LIMI TED LIABILITY COMPANY, Grantee(s) the following described real property in fire County of JACKSON and Stare of Oregon, free of encumbrivnces except as specifically set forth herein: nlnar:c:nq a, clip Siaethe"t coiner of Lot N C: Snowy Rtitt? -lrehards, Jackson County, 1•rnetnrr, a -voiding ts: the offl:iat p'141t thereof, crow of record, which said point is •rl the ^o,al;n?�reriy Ii_Ihc "Ll way line of the Southern Pacific Rai Lroad; thence nal o,:tI, i4''3' Ea?+ along said right of ,ray Line 528.68 feet tea 1" iron pill for the t lip Dullll ,f t;vq an inq: %hence North 89°27' weat 36%).17 feed thence South VQ I' zest 2.: a:4 teet. MOra or teas, to the Swath coundary Acne of said Int.- rhence Su•.rc fl °a''f3' vas- 454.04 res17, 71o[, or levs, tc the southwesterly right of way Line Yaczfic Fai'raad; thence )North 3S'00' West- 264.58 Feet along said -fightae to the r rue point of beginning. (Pap fl,." 341w11C, 'rx I -t 5400, Account :I9. 1-017632-8, Code 6-281 The above-described property n free of encumbrances except all these items of record, if any, as of the date of this deed and those Shown below, if any' Subject to the 2(104-05 real property taxes, a lien not yet due and payable rhe true and actual considcralioo for this cunveyaltce I'IIIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPL(C ABLF LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, TIIF PERSON A( QUiRING FFP. 'FITL E TO I'HF. PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH TIIE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DFI'AK"rMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USF,S AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON 1 A WSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS J0 930 C" Ixnttl 111i;av dity of -_ �u� �• vV rrFFkr IrLL Sx � nnrnrc r IL113c•oa•_�or+ ty ,6 / 1'LhtrFriitkkl ryrl 1't02rA rkA V Al. r .RK *� � v luv r,()n rhw9uxl exrnrc0 !?nos V l.F7RIt dale of Oregon Cuuoly ofJACKSON )N 116s InslramaN was acknowledged before me uniIL,_ 2004 by Lola V Albright. NuWry Puh[ie rcgen) 1vIp commission expires 301 A Amen itle P.rt p/Tld JP,LD•WRl P�wfly Jacksan County Olaclal Records 2005-072911 CM -11 BIT "A" R-wo BJ 1210112006 08:00:00 AM page 2 Of 3 f100015.00V100Total:;26.00 After recording return to: BOB PELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, an [haeme Limited Lisltility Cummmy 2950 Phillips Way Central Point, OR 97502 Until a change la requasted all lax staiementa shall be sent to The following address: BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Oreton Limited Liability Company 2950 Phillips Way Cemrai ?gin 4 OR 97502 iitibbile�r5lHttot20t teas THIS SPACE RESERII.11•adl s.erode,c-rrnnFa,h-1—ewe,,orlaen coaly IhM Ihr Mdln., MidrMm,d h—M—r,.arON In IN U.6 ,s an 5 necken - County Clerk Esaaw No. AP0763999 Title No 0763998 Q ,Vv STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED WALTER H, FROHREICH AND LEORA V. FROHREICH, TRUSTEES OR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN TRUST UNDER THE FROHRFACH LOVING TRUST DATED JANVARV 4, 1996, AND ANY AMENDMINNTS THERETO, Graewr(al ha:aby convey and warrant to BOB F9I.1.ONYS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, on Oregon Llmft" Ll4bilily Cemptny, Gnnlae(s) the winwing,ietcnbed nil property in Ute County ofJACUSON and State of Oregon tree eranculnlsrances accept in specifically act rnnh herein; SEE EXHIBIT A WHICH IS MADE A PART HEREOF RY THI,S REFERENCE The above_daaccr3egd propaW is free of encumbrances except all those items of racmd, if sny, as of that date of this deed and Ihoee shown below, if sny_ The true and actual consideration for this conveyance is PURSUANT TO AN IRC 1031 TAX DEFERRED EXCHANGE ON BEHALF OF GRAN"FOWGRAI't"TEC. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK W rm THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMIN 10.930. Q OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS Oalcd W442 " day of � 1.t) (2& WALTER H. FROHREICH AND LEORA V FROHREICH, TRUSTEES OR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN TRUST UNDER THE FROHREICH LOVING TRUST DATED JANUARY 4, 1996, AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO BY: rtiu Ir �• `�f� ��ccy�¢� WALTER H. MHREICH. TRUSTEE B ' '�r-,�'.a.�•u.� Q/M1C4aL !Fca""Mam RY FROHRBickTRusTHF,[!-----NStaleofOrogen Mgll911- lllflitl6 J County of /ACKSON This l0 umnnr was acknowledged barer* m* on3 2fN14 by WALTER H. FRGHREICH ,1N0 LEORA V FROHREICH, TRUSTEES OF THE FROHREI L VINO TRUST DATED JANUARY 4, 1946„ i Notary Public r*goaj My commission aspires- 0� �Q 302 Order No 0763999 EXHIBIT "A� Page 4 page 3 of 3 Cormrimnaincy at tha Northeast corner of Lok "X' of Snowy Butte Orcharda, Jackson County. Oregon, according to the officis.l plat Cheroot, now of retard, which salri point is on the 904chuesterly right-of-way line of the ecuthern Pacific Railroad; thence run Routh 35°o8' Mast aieng said tSght-of-way line 528.69 to s 1" iron pin. thence North 99'37' Nest 300.77 feet for the true point of beginning; thence Horth 89"37, wort 350.93 feet more or, less to the Wootariy boundary lisle of sald Lot "Vi thence $oath 0°01' West 222.24 feet, mora or less. to the Southweaterly corner of maid Lot •K"; thence South 89138, Bast 357.85 feet to a point which bears Horth 99'58' Nest 434.04 [eat from the Southsaat corner of *41d Lot; thence Horth 0°41, Mast 223.24 last, more or lens to the point of beginning. (Map So 117N11C, rax Lot 6300, ACCoartt No. 1.017631.0, code 6.21 a 304 A 0 - cc cc AN W � U) (D v w :1 8&r? PVC duiN OM �w t, 2 7 dn. PVC+ 4 &n. PVC I 306 Z ,3il5�'r� V) - "JW n 9 &ih AC j � •ung O %{ Tr !J cc 41 V r :1 8&r? PVC duiN OM �w t, 2 7 dn. PVC+ 4 &n. PVC I 306 Z ,3il5�'r� V) - n O mcg y cc r r � ffi � O s � o m coco 0 �8 O N QZ 7 O C WK O KZ Q N _� 4 7 Z Q � O W Q jig o R _G d z U _c F i� I %A 1 JENSEN & ASSOCIATES — —.— CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS May 3, 2017 CSA Planning Public Utility Analysis - 37S 2W 11C Tax Lots 3470 & 3425 EXHIBIT 11 Per your request, I have prepared an analysis of the availability of public underground utilities necessary to provide service to the development of the referenced tax lot in Central Point, Domestic Water system The property is basically surrounded by existing water lines and the installation of a looped water system supplying domestic water and fire protection will not be difficult. Storm Drainage Providing adequate storm drainage will be somewhat more challenging, from a design standpoint, since the property is generally lower than surrounding properties. A 1 T' storm drain has bean stubbed into the property on the wort lido from Lindsey Court- The site will need to be died in order to utilize this 12" storm drain and the storm drain may need to be removed and replaced with a larger sized pipe. Sanitary Sewer System The sanitary sewer system in Central Point is awned and maintained by RVSS. An existing system in the Lindsey Ct, Chicory Lane area is available for connection and extension to the east to provide service to the referenced parcels. Summary Any design challenges can be overcome through a combination of site grading and pipe upsizing and serving the property with adequate municipal storm drainage and other public utilities is feasible. r hn E. Jensen, .E. 310 RICHARD WAY, JACKSONVILLE, OR 97530 TEL, 541-779-4352 Cell 541-727-1330 emell� Jej42843@gmed.com 308 309 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ._ 372W1 1 C, Tax Lot 8400 Amerildle /raw of rh,/Fl.n-Wr?v F—fly ARcr recording return to; BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LI..C. AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY CO�1P_ANl_ _2950 PHILLIPS CcgTl Point, OR 97502 Until a change is requested all tum ltxtenlinIA shnit be milt to I he following address: BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY P)50 PHILLIPS _, C"ral Point. OR 37$07 Escrow No. API.1764707 THIS SPACE RFSF,RVI Jack— cet;nly Othrlul Records 2004-038981 n -w0 7/0&2004 02:30:00 PM _I1=1 Sln=1U tiUTTiNGFP 55 00 55 UO s 1 1 nU Total:$21.00 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 0/a4ta872094"3a6a10610911 i 11.n1.,ns a.[..� ca�no-, el.l. rd 7.e1,". e.w1 Ir.00n Nt,N [hn ,n. •n a nun..!,. Nn[411Nn nMri, nail •,rrd,� In q" CI..N "�� KalMrenS Bechcll County CleM STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED LOLA V. ALBRIGHT. Granlui(s) hereby convey and warrant to BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, AN OREGON LIM[TED LIABILITY COMPANY, Grantce(s) the following described real property in the County of J ACKSON and State of Oregon, free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein: cemnencing at the Northeast corner of. T.nl: K of Snowy 0titt:e Orchards, Jackson County, rtrt•gor,. +s^.cording to rhla Official Plat thereof, now Of record, which said point is •111 the cnuthsteateely right of tray line of t" Southa[n Pacific Railroad; t -►ante cul eulh 35°)8' East along said right of way line 528.66 feat to a t" iron Pin [Or thB ':cue pini: of beginning; !henceNorth 89°27' West 300.77 feet; thence South 0°01' West 122.24 foul., uh.re Cr 1._ss, to the Souch boundary 11aw of sail] L„t; tF,Pn-.•. Smith 89'5[1' East 454.04 feet, more or less, to the Southaescerly right of day line of the Southern Par-1fir_ Railroad; thence North 35°08' West 264 50 feet along said r! It-. of way line to the troe point of beginning, {Flap No. 372W1iC, Tax Got 8400, Account No. 1-017632-8, Code 6-28) The above-described property is flee of encumbrances except all those items of record, if any, m of ]hc date of this dLed and OlOae silawn We W. if any: Sabiccl to Ihr 2004.05 neat pruperty luxes, a.Iicrl not yct duct and Nyablr flee true and actual coosidcralion for this conveyance is Gomm fIIIS INSTRUMEN f WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, 1-1 Jr. PERSON hf'QUd[iiNG f Ci.T1TLETO THIEPROPBRTY SHOUi_O CIICCK WITU THE APPROPRIATP. CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING fyfIPA RTMENT TO VERI PY APPROVE0 USES ANO TO 09TERMINE TINY LIMITS ON LAwsur B AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRAC'I'lt'FS AS DEFINED IN ORS J0.9J0 Dated this GY,�j _ day of Lf.lC R. Zoo � � CFF S! tAL 9ERt J.l.. hiRFitApHN N[)SARv F�1611C-t3R8C.Ort Ct:Awrl9fik]Mrr] ]'56706 �. �' [ .� `' htY t•,QI,IMl:SiUPt E%PtlR:d lVNE {0.7006 41.'2AV ALBRfii1 State of Oregon County of JACKSON This instrument was acknowledged before me vn i Nl .2004 by Lola V. Albright ig0l6ry t ubiic 1`0100)My commission axpiros_6 fZ7 1 310 LEGAL DESCRIPTION -- 372W11C, Tax Lot 8300 Amd"Witle P.n0fn,lEL0-W rr..rly After recording return to: BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Ore an Limited Liabil! Ca an 2930 Phillips W Canirat Point, OR 97302 Until a change is requested ell tea statements shall be sent to The following address: BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION. LLC. an Oregon Limited Ltability Camimny 293{1 Phlllf Wa Central Pain! OR 97702 Escrow No. AP0763998 Title No. 0763998 ..:,. Jackson County OIIIUeI Records Y005-072911 RWO 12101!2008 0:00:00 AM C111-11 Sin -4 SHAWBJ 310 OD 85.00 f11 Da ToNIA2111.00 IIIINII�I�III Il I'fM0071 201 TH IS S PACE RESERI -. xris.o a e,arr, c.oMy c" rW i -b— c..<ry. o..we. c,nM iMl le. Mr,uw Nr Ir<ien.e h<,.Ir, wn,KNa.1 Of M. Ci,A d. Hseeeen S, Beds t • county Cbrk STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED M WALTER 1I, FROHREICH AND LEGI A V. FROMMICH. TRUSTEES OR THEIR SUCCESSORS INTRUST UNDER THE FROHREICH LOVING TRUST DATED JANUARY 4. I"fi, AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO, Orentor(s) hereby convey and warrent to BOS FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LK, net Oregon LIMIled Liability Company, Grantae(s) the rallowing dcxZnW real property in the County o(JACKSON end State of Oragan fru orencambroncas except as spoellieally set forth herein: SEE EXHIBIT A WHICH 15 MADE A PART HEREOF BY THIS REFERENCE The sbouc.doacribM property is bee of encumbrances except all those items of record, irony, at of the data of this deed arrd those shown below, if say: The tax and actual ranalderWan for this conveyance is PURSUANT TO AN IRC 1031 TAX DEFERRED EXCHANGE ON BEHALF OF GRANTOR/GRANTEE. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLO W USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING TMS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHOCK WIT" THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. '' Dated Ihie�, day of �+e�r /►y WALTER H. FROHREICH AND LF.ORA V. FROHREiCH, TRUSTEES OR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN TRtl3T UNDER THE FROHREICH LOVING TRUST DATED JANUARY 4. 1996. AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO WALTER If, FROHREICH, TRUV5F- B 40AIV. FROHREICH. TRUSTEE J.L, H WHAM/ MprARw pulou ORd00N COsilmW)A M Ito. TMRi Slate oforegon [Wbg County of JACKSON This Instrument was acknowledged before Arta an 2003 by WALTER H, FROHREICH AND LEORA V. FROHREICH, TRUSTEES OF THE PROHREI INQ TRUST DATED JANUARY 4, 1996,. ( o Public r egote) My commission expires 311 order No. 0763996 Page A Enzon 'a- Cormnencing at the Northeast Corner of lot ^!t" of Snowy Butte 6rchardc, SackRon County, Oxagan, ■ccordinq to the Official plat thereof, now of record, which maid point Is on the Southwernterly right -CE -way line of tha Southern FxCiflc Railroad; thence tun South 15'Oa' Bast along avid right-of-way lane 528.68 to a 11 iron pin; thence. North a9°27• Wert 300.77 feet for the true point of hegioning,• thence North 89°27' treat 339.93 fast more of leas to the waoterly houndary line of said Lot; IV; thence South 0001' Haat 272,21 feet, more or lass, to the Southwesterly Corner of said Lot IKI; tlsence South 0915a' Swat 357.aS feet CO ■ paint which Dente North 99°s9' wast 554.04 feet from the Southaant Corner of said Lot; thence North q*ot, Seat 222.74 feet, mare or tern to the point of haginning. Glop No. 372N13C,.Tsx Lot 6300, Account No. 1-017691-0, Code 6-2) a i Subject Lots 20,12 Aerial 300 -Foot Buffer Tax Lots Cit Limits L --.J Y -�—F- - Railroad 300 -Foot Radius Map Annexation / Zone Change " Bob Fellows Construction, LLC vv +E 37 -2W -11C tax lots 8300 & 8400 S E200 100 0 200 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. 313 ATTACHMENT "E" ]%,I CSA Planning, Ltd 4497 Brownridge, Sulte 101 Medford, OR 97604 Telephone 541 779.0569 July 6, 2017 Fax 541,779,0114 Jay@CSApienriing.net City of Central Point 140 S. 3rd Street Central Point, OR 97502 RE: Files Annex -17001, CPA -17002, and ZC-17001 Dear Mr. Humphrey: CSA Planning is in receipt of your letter dated May 19, 2017. That letter raised three issues concerning the above captioned land use applications (items 2 & 3 in the letter essentially concern the same matter). This letter addresses these issues as follows: 1. Pro -Application Issue. The Pre -Application meeting was held on June 28, 2017. Attendees were Tom Humphrey, Matt Samitore, Don Burt, Molly Bradley, Bob Fellows, Bev Thruston and Jay Harland. 2. Traffic Impact Analysis Issue: Applicant has engaged Southern Oregon Traffic Engineering to provide evidence from a traffic engineer that can be labelled "TIA". The Transportation Impact Analysis is submitted under cover of this letter. :3. Corrlmitted Residential Density Issue: The City's May 17' letter requests the Applicant provide additional findings that address the Regional Plan Element Section 4.1.5' At the June 28 meeting, this issue was discussed in some depth. At the meeting, the City agreed to provide the Applicant with draft calculation methodologies relating to density commitments in Section 4.1.5 and housing construction historical data. The same was provided by email in the form of the below text and tables: The below table is the latest inventory of vacant residential acreage within the urban area. The table Includes the current minin um net density for each zoning district and adjusts that number by a factor of 1.25 to gat gross. The 1.25 is based on the State's safe harbor 25% figure for right-of-way. The table also takes Into consideration the Fellows adjustments (last two columns) in the I.MR (3.84+) and MMR (3,84-) districts. As you can see the change In the average gross density remains well above the 9.9 figure. Average Groes Deuelly C111cubtbe City of conlralpoint , Min W DAarer 401114 4 1 231n Aaw Banca Glv d dmlrel PON 90168 la leaps IIINNary 314 Gras VAOMI follows Adoatl46 Zaahlr MIe.Nel M10,01. Anes is •h 9eIIMOW A/jrtd 804-004 UI+Ir ir! urr:_n Iy Dom71}I [I,"Aa ArfA Din.f NP11a DU 91dA Gr.A.ae. DU Y1,44 �.... RL I 1.25 I25 3% 5 1's S R.1.6 4 3 Kill 8% 54 10.68 34 4.1.e 3 3.75 3.86 3% 14 3116 14 R -i-10 2 2.5 3,13 2% t 3.13 1 R•2 4 7.7 31.99 27% 265 31,94 261 ;R•3 14 17,5 J132 A. 61 312 62 :I NUL 6 7,3 15.44 11% 116 19.08 143 N101 14 11,7 46,21 3341 809 42,57 745 11>11R 3p 579 13.30 I W . 3Y6 13.50 506 1 --_ . 136,79 100•x+ 1&! 138,79 sAV W ArnseeCr, DIraANr — . T 11.10__ _ _ Id i1 i , Min W DAarer 401114 4 1 231n Aaw Banca Glv d dmlrel PON 90168 la leaps IIINNary 314 City of CeetlaI Point Housing Construction by Housing Type snd Zoning, City Limits 1980-2016 Habil. SPR SPR Mobile [to.. Care u,;A d. Allached Oonlai TrlglecNFR Qqm. ]e - - 71 896 1,145 426 4 68 334 171 370 4 12 113 L2 2 16 _ i<a.794 asx 51" 12 222 65 75 1rr Z21 15 Toll flowing %.r nni!a -Tafal 30 1! 71 Z' 998 21! 1,148 27 498 12! 1,025 241 3869! 217 pl 26 V, 4. Committed Residential Density Supplemental Findings: Based upon the above information provided by the City, the Applicant herewith provides the following supplemental findings related to this issue; a. The Applicant seeks the LMR zoning because the market demand is for single-family dwellings as has been the case over the last 37 years. Over 78 percent of the houses constructed during that period have been detached single family dwellings. The Applicant/Owner seeks to construct single family dwellings on the site as the predominant housing type consistent with historical the market demands in Central Point. The LMR designation will allow this to occur. Moreover, when the housing type market data in the second table is compared to the land supply data in first table, it appears that Central Point is considerably overweight with respect to land in the multi -family designations. The MMR, HMR and R-3 zones comprise 45.5% of the total vacant land supply when just over 20% of total housing, by type constructed is multi -family. This is born -out by an estimated build -out under the minimum densities of over 13 units to the gross acre. This condition makes a strong case that many other properties, in addition to the Fellows property, should be re -designated to a lower density residential designation to better balance RPS density commitments with the City's Goal 10 Housing obligations_ b. With respect to the density requirements at Regional Plan Element Section 4.1.5, the Applicant's position is that the language and context of Section 4.1.5 concerns City-wide density commitments. As such, plan amendments such as the one proposed here relate only to the effect the individual change is projected to have on the City-wide density obligations. According to the math in the above table, the City's currently planned densities exceed the minimum density requirement in RPS by almost double (an additional 8.5 units to the acre) and the proposed amendment would still result in the City having a planned minimum density that would be approximately 8.23 units to the acre above the minimum requirement. 5. Site Density Effects If Draft Bross Density Standards of LMR Are Adopted: Notwithstanding Applicant's position in 4(b) above that Regional Plan Element Section 4.1 .5 concerns the City as a whole and that the proposed change has a nominal effect on the City's ability to meet those density commitments, the Applicant would like to work with the City on advancing its density objectives. City of Central Point Page 2 315 1 -J The Applicant has done some more specific design work for the site, see the attached design concept. The Applicant envisions a project that can deliver 21 dwelling units. Applicant is willing to stipulate to a condition of the zone change that would require delivery of at least 21 units on the site. The design work for the site results in approximately 2.16 net developable acres for residential development. Because of all the infrastructure requirements for this particular site, the net -to -gross factor for this site is approximately 1.68. This is 35% more than the assumption in the City's calculations above. The City's proposed net -to -gross factor of 1.25 would typically be associated with a site of approximately 2.7 gross acres where the site yields 2.16 net developable acres, as follows: 2,16 (net acres) x 1.25 (net - to - gross Factor) = 2.7 (gross acreage assumption) If the site were 2.7 acres then the minimum density requirement above of 7.5 units to the gross acre contemplated by the City in its draft calculations would be satisfied with the stipulated 21 dwelling units: 2,7 (gross acres) x 7.5 (gross density contempiated) = 20,25 dwelting units In this instance, 0.80 additional acres on a small project is being devoted to the delivery of key infrastructure by working with Public Works on the Haskell Street improvements. This needed connection will eventually benefit the entire City and this will in turn support the City's goals to comply with Goal 10 and implement its TSP. We believe the minimal effect on the City's overall density objectives should be weighed in favor of moving this key infrastructure connection forward in a collaborative manner with the property owner. The Applicant believes the stipulated minimum supply of 21 dwelling units represents an appropriate balance betvveen market demand for single-family homes, attainment of the draft minimum density standards being developed by staff to implement Regional Plan Element Section 4.1 ,5 and compliance with the current density regulations in the LMR District which would allow for as few as 13 dwelling units. Very Truly Yours, CSA Planning, Ltd. 4A- 4 Ffsrlend Principal Applicant Reserves the right for his attorney to argue this provision is inapplicable to the subject application under the applicable case law, i.e. Bennett vs. The City of Dallas, and subsequent cases, City of Central Point Page 3 316 ATTACHMENT "F" IOUTai-?N Duoy TpamfPOPUTION-Cmonzr?IN�, LLC 319 Eastwood Drive - Medford, Or 97504 — Phone (541) 606-9923 — Email: Kwkpl@Q.com July 10, 2017 Matt Samitore, Public Works Director City of Central Point 140 South Third Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 RFs: Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis Dear Matt, Soutivern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC prepared a limited traffic analysis for a proposed annexation, comprehensive plan map amendment, and zone change on property located east of Chicory Lane and south of Haskell Street on Township 37S Range 2W Section 11 C tax iots 8300 and 8400. Background Access to the subject property is provided from Chicory Lane and Haskell Street. Haskell Street is the higher order street that provides connectivity to W. Pine Street to the north_ Other lower order streets around the site provide alternate connectivity to both the north and south. Malabar Street, Glenn Way, and Chicory Lane west of the site are all two-lane local streets with curb and gutter. Chicory Lane is unimproved north of Lindsey Court and is an alley south of the property. Haskell Street is a two-lane collector with curb and gutter in the vicinity of the site and terminates at the northeast comer of the property. Sidewalks and a park row will be added along the subject property frontage as part of development, connecting pedestrian facilities to the north and south on Haskell 317 Street. The nearest higher order intersection with Haskell Street is currently its intersection with W. Pine Street to the north. In the future, Haskell Street will extend to the south where it connects to Beall Lane, but at this time the only higher order intersection is Haskell Street and W. Pine Street. This intersection experiences its largest spike in traffic during the a.m. peak hour as a result of commuter traffic and school traffic from Mae Richardson Elementary occurring simultaneously Monday through Friday. As a result of this, the a.m. peak hour was used as the critical peak hour in the analysis. Year 2017 No -Build Intersection Operations Manual traffic counts were gathered in late February of 2017 at the study area intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street. Counts were gathered during the a.m. peak period (7:00-9:00 a.m.) for three consecutive weekdays in an effort to capture: a morning commute with heavy school traffic. Manual counts were also gathered on Pine Street at OR 99 (Front Street) during the a.m. peak period and at Haskell Street and W. Pine Street daring an extended p.m. peak period (2:110-6:00 p.m.) to capture both school traffic and the commuter peak. All counts were seasonally adjusted to reflect peak conditions and then evaluated to determine how facilities currently operate. Results were prepared in an earlier analysis for the Creekside apartments (March of 2017) and am rin hmlgv4 for Otis analysis They are summarized in Table 1. Table 1— Year 2017 No-Bo>17d Intersection Operabons loteroection Jrrlydic0180 Perferwan" Traffic Year 2917 Year 3011 St ndord Con" No -Build Ne -Bund A.M. Pak P.M. Peak Haskell Street / W. Phsr Street City of Cculral Puutl LOS D Signal C, 21.1 MI. A, 9.2 -.Let; T X)ss - I nVoI of servics, sac - seconds Note: Exceeded performance standards are Shawn in bold, italic Results of the analysis show the intersection; of Haskell Street and pine Street operating at a [eve( of service (LOS) "C" under existing year 2017 no -build conditions during a.m. peak hour, which is shown to be significantly worse than the LOS "A" operation during the p.m. peals hour. Both operations are within the City's LOS "D" performance standard, but this verifies that the a.m. peak hour is the critical peak hour of the day. Refer to the attachments for synchro output sheets. Year 2017 No -Build Queuing and Blocking Queuing is the stacking up of vehicles for a given lane movement, and it can have a significant effect on roadway safety and the overall operation of a transportation system. Long queue lengths in through lanes can block access to turn lanes, driveways, and minor street approaches, as well as spill back into upstream intersections. As a result of this, the estimation of queue lengths is an important aspect of the analysis process for determining how a transportation corridor operates. Queue lengths are reported as the average, maximum, or 95'b percentile queue length. The 95`" percentile queue length is used for design purposes and is the queue length reported in this analysis. Five simulations were run and averaged in SimTrafl'ic to determine 95'b percentile queue lengths for a previous analysis for the Creekside Apartments (March of 2017) and are unchanged in this analysis. Queue lengths were rounded up to the nearest 25 feet (single vehicle length) and reported in Tablu 2 for applicable movements during the a.m, and p.m. peak hours. Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC i Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 2017 12 318 Table 2 — Year 2017 No -Build 95th Percentile Queue Lengths Available Link 95 lb Percentile Intersection Movement Distance Queue Length (Feet) AM (feet) Haskell Street / W. Pine Street Percentile Queue Lengths — Baslmll / W. Pine Isolated Southbound Left 375 750" Southbound Through/Right 150 175* Northbound Left/Through/Right 525 100* Eastbound Left 150 175* Eastbound Through/Right 425 675* Westbound Left 150 75 Westbound Through 375 200 Westbound Right 275 125 Note- Execedcd queue lengths ars: shown in bold, italic Queue lengths affected by downstream congestion at Pine Street / OR 99 951' Percentile Queue Length PM (feet) 150 50 50 50 175 too 250 100 Results of the queuing analysis show many exceeded queue lengths occurring under existing conditions during the a.m. peak hour as a result of downstream queuing on Pine Street at OR 99 (Front Street). In watching traffic in the field and verifying through model simulations, the eastbound traffic volume on Pine Street at OR 99 exceeds the single lane capacity provided, and the amount of green time for that movement cannot support the demand. This results in a queue length that backs up through the railroad crossing, Amy Street, and Haskell Street for approximately twenty minutes of the a.m. peak period. When this occurs, the southbound left, eastbound through, and northbound right turn movements at Haskell Street and W. Pine Street have no place to go when they have a green light. In order to properly show this, we evaluated the intersection, of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street as an isolated intersection. The queuing results are shown in Table 3_ Table 3 —Year 2017 No -Build 95th _ Percentile Queue Lengths — Baslmll / W. Pine Isolated Avallable Link W Percentile latersection Movement Distance Queue Length Exceeded (Feet) _ AM (feet) — Haskell Street / W. Pine Street Southbound Left 375 250 No Southbound Through/Right 150 50 No Northbound Left/Through/Right 525 75 No Eastbound Left 150 125 No Eastbound Through/Right 425 250 No Westbound Left 150 75 No Westbound Through 375 150 No Wcstbound Right 275 100 No Note. Exeecded queue langlhs are shown in hold, italic What is shown in Table 3 is that the intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street does not have exceeded queue lengths during the a.m. peak hour when it isn't impacted by downstream queue lengths. The green splits provided for traffic movements are sufficient to handle the spike in traffic that occurs when school traffic and commuter traffic mix. The southbound left turn and eastbound through queue lengths are still shown to be long, but this is expected during the peak period, and both continue to stay within their available link distances. This confirms that the problem on the system is occurring downstream at Pine Street and OR 99, Traffic signal timing adjustments Were explored at the intersection of Pine Street and OR 99, but were not shown to solve the capacity problem occurring during the a.m. peak hour. The solation is to Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, L/C I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 2017 13 319 provide two eastbound through lanes on Pine Street between Haskell Street and S. 2"d Street. Whentwo travel lanes are provided, the eastbound queue on Pine Street at OR 99 does not back up and impact the intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street. Table 4 summarizes queue lengths with mitigation in place. Table 4 — Year 2017 No -Build 95'h Percentile Queue Lengths — Mitigated Available Link 951h Percentile Intersection Movement Distance Queue Leegtb Exceeded (Feet) AM (feet) Haskell Street I W. Pine Street _ Southbound Left 375 275 No Southbound Through/Right 150 75 No Northbound LeWhrough/Right 525 75 No Eastbound Left 150 100 No Eastbound Through/Right 425 250 No Westbound Left ISO 75 No Westbound Through 375 150 No Westbound Right 275 1110 No Able Fxceeded queue lengths are sham in bold. italic. As can be seen in Table 4, when two travel lanes are provided eastbound on Pine Street at OR 99, queue lengths at the Haskell Street and W. Pine Street are similar to those that were shown as an isolated intersection, which means that they aren't affected by downsirearn queuing. This mitigation was previously shown to be rcquired in tate year 2000 Central Point Transit Oriented Developmrat Traffic Impact Study prepared by Ml Transportation. This study evaluated the need and benefit of a third railroad crossing at Twin Creeks to the north, which reduces traffic on Haskell Street and preserves future capacity at the lniersevilou witil W. Dille Succi. \,Vl1SUuC`I.iGTi vi Luw utuu S01AJVau �av�iiin t5 scheduled for completion by November of 2017, which will occur before the proposed 50 -unit Creekside Apartments development builds out. For this reason, the year 2018 no -build and build analyses in this report assume re -ranting of traffic From Haskell Street to OR 99 through the 11ti in Creeks railroad crossing, consistent with what was shown to occur in model runs providcd for the JRH study. Crash History Crash data for the most recent 5 -year period was provided from ODOT's Crash Analysis Unit. Results were provided for the period of January 1 ", 2011 through December 31 ", 2015. Intersection safety is generally evaluated by determining the crash rate in terms of crashes per Million Entering Vehicles (MEV) at intersections or Million Vehicle Miles (MVM) for segments. The details of crash data are examined to identify any patterns that could be attributable to geometric or operational deficiencies. A crash rate higher than the ODOT published 90`h percentile rate or trends of a specific type of crash may indicate the need for further investigation along a corridor. Data at the study area intgrsection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street showed ten collisions within a 5 - year period. Tables 5 and 6 provide a summary of results. Crash data is provided in the attachments. Table 5 - Study Area Intersection Crash Rates, 2011-2015 Intersection 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total AADT vCrash — ODOT Crashes Rate 90 /a Haskell Street / W. Pine Street 0 1 2 5 2 1 14,900 1 0.37 0.860 Southern Oregon T•amporlation Engineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 2017 1 4 320 Table 6 - Crash History by Type, 2011-2015 Intersection Collision Type Rear- Turning/ Fixed Other Ped/ End Angle Object Bike Severity Non- Injury Fatal Injury Haskell Street / W, Pine Street 1 3 6 1 0 0 1 to 0 0 There were ten reported collisions at the study area intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street within a five year period. Six of the ten collisions were turning collisions, which is common at intersections with permissive movements because drivers are required to yield and often do not. Three of the ten were rear -end collisions, all of which occurred during either the a.m, or p.m. peak periods likely as a result of congestion. None of the collisions resulted in injury. There were no pedestrian or bicyclist related collisions, nor were there any fatalities. The number of collisions at Haskell Street and W. Pine Street show an average of two per year, which is not considered excessive especially considering the high tragic spikes that are shown to occur during peak periods, but more importantly, the severity of collisions is low which reduces the safety concern. The intersection crash rate is significantly less than the ODOT published 90"' percentile crash rate, which is used as a measure to determine whether further investigation should be taken. Based on all of this, no further investigation is shown to be necessary. Design Year 2018 No -Build Conditions Design year 2018 no -build conditions represent development build year conditions for the study area without consideration of proposed development trips. This condition is evaluated to determine how a study area will be impacted by area background growth. An annual growth rate was developed for traffic movements from the ODOT Future Volumes Table. Two locations were evaluated and averaged, which included OR 99 at Beall Lane and OR 99 at Scenic Ave. The average corresponding growth rate was 1.5% of growth per year through the future year 2035. Design year 2018 no -build conditions for this analysis also included re-routed trips from a third railroad crossing at Twin Creeks and in -process development trips from the previously approved Creekside Apartments. A spreadsheet with growth calculations and volume development is provided in the attachments. Design Year 2018 No -Build Intersection Operations The intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street was evaluated under design year 2018 no -build conditions during the a.m. peak hour to evaluate impacts from background growth, re-routing of trips through the planned third railroad crossing at Twin Creeks, and additional development on Haskell Street. A mitigated scenario (additional eastbound lane on W. Pine Street) was also evaluated for comparison purposes, Results of both scenarios are summarized in Table 7. Table7 — Design Year 2018 No -Build Intersection Operatlons Intersection Jurisdiction Performance Traffic AM Peak AM Peak Standard Control No -Build Mitigated Haskell Street / Pine Street City or Central Point LOS D signal B, 17.0 sec B, 17.6 sec LOS = Le vei of 5ery ire. sec = seconds Note; Exceeded performance standards are shown in bold, italic Southern Oregon Transporla4on Engineering. LLC i Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 2017 15 321 Results of the analysis show the intersection of Haskell Street and W, Pine Street continues to operate acceptably under design year 2018 no -build scenarios with and without mitigation on W. Pine Street, but the additional eastbound lane does reduce congestion considerably, which can be seen in the queuing analysis below. Refer to the attachments for synchro output sheets. Design Year 2018 No -Build Queuing and Blocking Five simulations were run and averaged in SimTraffic to determine 951" percentile queue lengths at Haskell Street and W. Pine Street under design year 2018 no -build conditions. Queue lengths were rounded up to the nearest 25 feet (single vehicle length) and reported in Table 8 for applicable movements during the a.m. peak hour under no -build and mitigated no -build conditions. Table S — Design Year 2018 No -Build 9516 Percentile Queue Lengths — AM Peak Hour Available Link 950 Percentile 950 Percentile Intersection Movement Distance Queue Length Queue L V& (Leet) AM No -Build AM Mingeted Haskell Street / W. Pine Street Southbound Left 375 450* 275 Southbound Through/Right 150 75 50 Northbound Left/ThrougIVR i ght 325 100 75 Eastbound Left I30 100* 100 Eastbound Through/Right 425 700* 275 Westbound Left 150 100 75 Westbound through 3b l /a 17f3 Westbound Riaht 275 100 100 Note- Exceeded queue lengths are shown in bold, italic " Queue lengths affected by downstream congestion at Pine Street / OR 99 As can be seen in Table 8, queue lengths continue to exceed link distances along W. Pine Street between Haskell Street and OR 94 in the eastbound direction (and southbound on Haskell Stniml as a direct result of the eastbound queue length) even with consideration of the third railroad crossing at Twin Creeks under design year 2018 no -build conditions. With consideration of an additional eastbound through lane on W. Pinc Street east of Haskell Street (mitigated c(mdition), al queue lengths are shown to stay within their available link distances during the a.m. peak hour. full queuing and blocking reports are provided in the attachments. Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 201716 322 Trip Generation Trip generation calculations for proposed development trips were prepared utilizing the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 9`h edition. The ITE rate was used for land use code 210 — Single Family Residential. All trips were considered new trips to the transportation system. A summary is provided in Table 9. Table 9 — Development Trip Generations Land Use Unit Size AM RateRate AM Peak Hour PMPM Peak Hour Total (In) (Out) Total (In) (Out) 210—Single Family Residential DU 23 0.75 17 4 13 1.00 23 14 9 Net New Trips 17 4 13 23 14 9 DU = dwelling unit Trip Distribution and Assignment Development trips were assumed to distribute a little over 50% to/from the north on Haskell Street_ The remaining 50% was assumed to distribute to surrounding local streets such as Chicory Lane, Glenn Way, and Malabar Street to travel tolfrom the north, south, and west. At W. Pine Street, trips were distributed in accordance with existing traffic patterns with one exception. The one exception was that trips weren't assumed to distribute to/from the west on W. Pine Street at Haskell Street because an assumption was made that trips wanting to travel to/frum the west would more likely use an alternate route via Chicory Lane and Glenn Way. Refer to the diagram below for percentage splits and distributions at Haskell Street and W. Pine Street. Development Trips, AM Peak Hour Development Trips, PM Peak Har 1 461' 1 1 4% 1 0 1 0 D 1 1 1 0 ^ Assumptiorr AIN 0 D PM L' 50% of development Haskell l Pirse St 0 0 Haskell l Pine M 0 tdpsdslribute167f4xr, 7:15-0:15 am 1 0 3:45-4_45 pan 6 the north on Haskell 0 1 1 1 6 541% W. 0 1 i 1 4 55% Street and 50% ldfrom 2 1 7 7 L5 the south, north, and west a% 10% 90% or. 8Y. 049: on Chicory Ln, Glenn Wy. A, It 4 and Malabo street, 2 7 7 5 Traffic from proposed development trips Can use several routes to travel to/from the north, south, and west. Haskell Street provides connectivity to and from the north. At some point in the future, Haskell Street is expected to extend further to the south, at which time it will provide a direct connection from the proposed development to the south. Chicory Lane, which borders the proposed development property on the west and south, provides connectivity to/from the south through an alley and indirectly to the west through Timothy, Street, Timothy Street feeds Malabar Street and Glenn Way, which provide additional connections to/from the north and south. We assumed conservatively that at least 50% of development trips would use Haskell Street to travel to/from the north to W. Pine Street because this is the most direct route through a higher order street. The remaining trips were assumed to use other routes mentioned from surrounding local streets. Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 20t7 17 323 Design Year 2018 Build Conditions Design year 2018 build conditions represent design year 2018 no -build conditions with the addition of proposed development trips considered. Build conditions are compared to no -build conditions to determine what impacts and/or mitigation measures will result from proposed development. Design Year 2018 Build Intersection Operations The intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street was evaluated under design year 2018 build conditions during the a.m, peak hour to determine what impacts, if any, would result from proposed development trips. Results are summarized in Table 10 for build and mitigated build conditions. Table 10 — Design Year 2018 Build Intersection Operations, A.M. Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Performance Traffic Year 2018 Year 2018 Standard Control Build Beild-Mitigated ilaai ell uu`eet i Vine Sired City of Qxi-as ioira LOS D ulg�iai B, ig.v sc:, v, i 7.`� ;CC_ WS - Lrvtl orScrvioc. SCC=aneonds Note: Exceeded pwform wKx standards ars Aawn in bold, italic. Results of the analysis show the intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street continues to operate acceptably (within performance standards) with additional traffic from the proposed development. Refer to the attachments For synchro output sheets. Desizrn Year 2018 Build Oueuing and Blocking Five simulations were run and averaged in SitnTraffic to determine 95`I` percentile queue lengths under design year 2018 build conditions. Queue lengths were rounded up to the nearest 25 feet (single vehicle length) and reported in Table l 1 for traffic movements during the am. peak hour under build and mitigated build conditions. Table I1 — Design Year 2018 Build 9er's Percentile Queue Lengths —A.M. Peak Hour Available Link 95`6 Percentile "16 Pdnendir Intersection Movement Distance Queue Length Quem I.a+sgtb (Feet) Build Butld Itigated Haskell Street / W. Pine Street Southbound Left 375 475* 250 Southbound Through/Right I50 75 50 Northbound Left/ThroughlRight 525 125 75 Eastbound Left 150 175* 100 Eastbound Through/Right 425 goo* 250 Westbound Left 150 100 75 Westbound Through 375 175 150 Westbound Right 275 100 100 Note: Exceeded queue lengths are shown in bold, itatie * Queue lengths affected by downstream congestion at Pine Street / OR 99 Results of the queuing analysis show queue lengths at the intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street continue to operate much like they did under design year 2018 no -build and mitigated no -build conditions during the a.m. peak hour. Slight increases occur in the eastbound through -shared -right turn movement as a result of development trips, but the change is insignificant. The additional eastbound Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 201718 324 lane on W. Pine Street continues to adequately mitigate congestion between OR 99 and Haskell Street. Refer to the attachments for a full queuing and blocking report. Conclusions The findings of the traffic analysis conclude that the proposed annexation, zone change, and comprehensive plan map amendment resulting in the potential for 23 single family dwelling units can be approved without creating substantial impacts to the surrounding transportation system. Supporting factors include that Haskell Street has sufficient capacity to support proposed development, and the study area intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street operates acceptably (within City performance standards) with and without proposed development. The only issue noted in the traffic analysis is an existing queuing problem on W. Pine Street at Haskell Street during the a.m. peak hour. Queuing occurs on W, Pine Street at OR 99 (Front Street) in the eastbound direction during the a.m. peak hour because only one through lane is provided and this is not sufficient to handle the traffic demand. This eastbound queue length on W. Pine Street at OR 99 spills back past Haskell Street during the spike in traffic and impacts the signalized intersection of Haskell Street and W, Pine Street. The solution for this is to provide a second eastbound through lane on Pine Street, which was evaluated in this analysis and shown to mitigate congestion, but the logistics of this needs further investigation and should be pursued by the City to determine what options are available to provide such an improvement. Without the improvement, the study area intersection continues to operate at an acceptable level of service with and without the proposed development, but queuing on W. Pine Street will continue to affect Haskell Street approaches during the a.m. peak hour. This is expected to reduce when the third railroad crossing at Twin Creeks is in place in November of 2017. It will be fully mitigated when a second eastbound through lane on Pine Street at OR 99 is implemented. Please feel free to contact nye if you have any questions or need additional information regarding this letter_ Sincerely, 14�i LL0---- Kimberly Parlcei PE, PTOE Souuaff Nun TPAnsaoRTATlon Znclnupw, LLC Attachments; Count Data, Crash Data Traffic Volume Development Synchro Output/SimTraffic Output Supporting Data Cc: Client PIa��,�� �S �G t Ar'V f� 53 OP r ` OREGON G� Y PAatD�' Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 201719 325 ATTACHMENTS 326 North-South: S. Haskell Street East-West: E. Pine Street Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles SWAM CUP" .�Ksd jsvd, 04.97500 Groups Printed- unaAEfted File Name : Pine -Haskell -Tues Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 2/21/2017 Page No ;1 327 S, Haskell St E. Pine St S, Haskell St E. Pin From North From East_ From South From West WAT-0 , llfi Th- .". Pods w- Left Th- RyN Ped$ yµrr lett : Thru ; R�1.'P@# yt� - Left TrW " Poch ; w v w mw 1 2 0 38 12 25 20 1 58 0 0 10 0 10' 1. 53 1 0 55 161 Tow 35 1 2 0 38 12 25 20 1 58 6 D 10 _ 6 10 1 55 tel 07:00 AM 45 0 1 3 49 6 37 16 0 59 1 0 14 0 15 6 69 1 0 76 199 0715 AM 63 1 7 0 91 4 37 52 1 94 2 1 8 0 11 12 82 0 1 95 1 291 07:30 Alin ' 140 2 10 5 157 3 36 56 2 97 1 4 28 2 35 ' 15 83 1 20 119'. 408 Q7:4¢AM.; 120_ 2 13 5 140 19 e0 42 3 131 0 $ 20 Q 21_ >Z 1* 2 ]� ° - ;19 Tot11l 366 5 31 13 437 32 176 166 6 360 4 8 70 2 84 45 323 4 44 4161 1317 08:00 AM 71 3 9 2 85 13 38 30 0 81 0 1 21 2 24 2 90 3 3 98 268 08:15 AM 69 0 1 2 72 9 35 30 0 74 3 2 7 1 13 2 59 1 1 63 232 06:30 AM 72 0 5 1 78 8 49 34 0 91 0 1 11 0 121 1 95 1 1 98 279 09:4.5 AM 47 2 3 0 52 10 44 27 2 93 3 2 12 1 18 1 2 1 ,� 57 Trial 259 5 18 5 297 50 166 121 2 339 8 6 11 4- _ 67 6 _ 296 6 8 316 _ 1009 GMW TOW 682 11 51 16 752 94 367 307 9 777 10 14 131 6 161 52 672 11 52 787 2487 Apprrh % 89.5 1 4 87 2.4 12.1 47.2 39.5 1.2 6.2 8.7 81A 3.7 6.6 85A 1A 6.6 Tq:aj % 27A 0.4 2.1 0.7 30.6 3.8 14.8 12.3 0.4 312 0.4 0.6 5.3 0.2 8.5 2.1 27 0.4 2.1 316 327 Suade w 0 Yw#wpartalttM Ilrtiillrfy GCC .rl64w4 ®i. 97504 North-South: S. Haskell Street East-West: E. Pine Street Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles File Name : Pine-Haskell—Tues Site Code ; 00000001 Start Date : 2/21/2017 Page No :2 y Hatted! In - Peak Hcgr.07:15 AM 473 30 Be 414 12 W1 r1Mu Lsit PC& Peak Hour Data NOnh r CP 1 AN 9 g pp'u LeAJ� 9 fth,fi: P 4 93 In - Peak Hour: 07, 15 AM 328 S. Haskell St E. Pine St S. Haskell St E. Pine St From North From East From South From West Stag Left �'"' Peds ,., Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped Apo. Int. TIM u ht s Total a ht s Tolal a ht s Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:15 AM to 08.00 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Pgak Now for F,.4c11 Appraerh ftom i1: W 15w n 15AM 0715 AM O.!MAM +0 riiFle 83 1 7 0 S i 4 37 52 i 74 2 1 0 0 11 12 02 0 i 95 +15mins. 140 2 10 5 137 3 36 56 2 97 1 4 28 2 36 16 83 1 20 119 +30 mkt. 120 2 13 5 140 19 66 42 3 130 0 3 20 0 23 12 89 2 23 126 +45 mina. 71 3 9 2 tib_ 13 38 30 0 81 0 1 21 2 24 2 91 3 3 98 mover.. 414 8 39 12 473 39 177 180 8 402 3 9 77 4 93 41 344 B 47 438 'Is App Top $76 L7 _6.2 216 9.7 44 44.8 1.5 32 9.7 82.8 4.3 94 TS -5 IA 107 PHF 739 687 750 600 753 .513 670 .804 .500 773 _378 -583 .688 500 964 _683 .536 500 -511 .6614 y Hatted! In - Peak Hcgr.07:15 AM 473 30 Be 414 12 W1 r1Mu Lsit PC& Peak Hour Data NOnh r CP 1 AN 9 g pp'u LeAJ� 9 fth,fi: P 4 93 In - Peak Hour: 07, 15 AM 328 Saudi= oufm sunopoxMues &wh"56106 AM md4mdy 046 97504 North-South: S. Haskell Street File Name : Pine -Haskell_ Wednesday East-West: E. Pine Street Site Code : 00000002 Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Start Date : 2/22/2017 Veh Type: All Vehicles Page No : 1 329 _Groups PtL" _ Unsh4wd S. Haskefl St E. Pine St S. Haskell St E. Pine St From m North_ Fmm. East From 5oWh F%m West $19A ThnB Left Tipu R fQiY PeAs /A_r�W .Lett_ _ ThN _ RiplA ' Peds _ . . _Tr , i Brt TAru ; RS�x Pis , y Ter lPR , Thru _ Peds ,. r n �. Trr 07:00 AM 43 0 2 1 46 9 36 19 0 83 0 6 14 0 14 3 49 1 0 63 176 07:15 AM 75 1 3 1 80 4 38 56 0 98 2 2 7 0 11 11 78 0 6 89 278 07:30 AM 145 1 12 5 163 9 21 52 1 83 1 2 36 0 39 18 88 2 24 132 417 U-44 AM _ 11.4 $ _ 9 1 140 11 88 6 14Q 1 3 18 0 22 10 9f 14 118. _8 Total 381 5 30 13 429 33 162 _6d 185 4 384 4 7 75 0 86 42 306 4 38 _ 3901 1289 08:00 AM 90 1 4 4 99 15 41 32 0 86 0 0 9 1 10 3 86 2 5 951 292 08:15 AM 55 2 3 0 60 5 30 28 0 63 0 1 15 0 18 3 52 1 1 57; 196 08:30 AM 65 0 5 1 72 8 33 22 0 83 1 1 11 1 14 0 81 0 4 66 i 214 04:46 AM 93 1 2 2 t19 10 4 _ Q _7� 1. D 8 3 t2, 3 44 --- 1 -1 -M1 - M3 Tolal 274 4 14 7 299 38 137 111 0 286 2 2 43 5 52 9 252 4 13 278' 915 GimW Total 655 9 44 20 728 71 299 296 4 670 8 9 118 5 138 51 558 8 51 C68 2204 AMCh % 90 1.2 6 2.7 10.6 44.6 44.2 06 4.3 6.5 85.5 3,6 T.8 83.5 12 7.6 Total % 29.7 0A 2 0.9 33 32 13.8 13A 02 30.4 0.3 0.4 5.4 0.2 8.3 2,3 25.3 0.4 2.3 34.3 329 sakaffs oaf" &w11111111malw, Ue .if(a*"d, AL 97504 North-South: S. Haskell Street File Name : Pine-Haskell—Wednesday East-West: E. Pine Street Site Code :00000002 Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Start Date : 2/22/2017 Veh Type: All Vehicles Page No :2 330 S. Haskell St E Pine St #2. S. Haskell St E Pine St From Ngrth Rkghl fl!ru Lra Pm% Fre- From South I From West _ _ Start Loft Thru R(phl Pear 1. ,,. nn tett _ Thr . Rig . Ped ' App. Leh Thr Rig Ped I APP• Left ThT Rig Ped- App, Int. Tmq U, rd a Tow u ht S. TuY81 : u ht a•; Total ; TOW _ _ _ Prak Hour Maysis From 07:1 S AM to 08:00 AAA - Peak 1 of 1 f I. In . Pnk Haw 07 15 A M Weak Hour for Each Approach 8egft at R:NAM 011S AM W MAN W.UAU +0 r"Uw. 75 1 3 1 So. 4 36 56 0 98 2 2 7 0 11 11 78 0 0 89 +15 rrAw. 145 1 12 5 163: 9 21 52 1 83 1 2 36 0 30 16 88 2 24 132 ; +30 mfns. 118 3 13 6 140 11 68 38 3 140 1 3 18 0 22 10 91 1 14 116 ? *A. Mk 90 1 4 4 99 16 41 32 0 88 0 0 9 1 10 3 85_ 2 9 -V__ Tow wk w 428 6 32 16 482 39 166 148 4 409 4 7 70 1 82 42 342 5 43 432 s AM. tow 6811 12 66 3.3 95 41 i 48.4 1 4 9 8.5 ds 4 12 9.7 79,2 1.2 10 PHF 738 500 615 667 739 650 616 653 333 730 500 563 .468 250 526 .563 ,940 425 A'" 330 +aw wl S1 fn P Fjp�L y7 16 AM #2. Rkghl fl!ru Lra Pm% l Peak Hour Data r, .. Norp1 tkmWtiaR 4 , Ill. Trot+_. A!� F -W 41 L I. In . Pnk Haw 07 15 A M 330 sumportat m Fiprbmhop, me . B& 97504 North-South: S. Haskell St File Name : Pine -Haskell_ Thursday East-West: E. Pine St Site Code : 00000003 Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Start Date : 2/23/2017 Veh Type: All Vehicles Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Urwhftd 331 S. Haskell E. Pine St S. Haskell E. Pins St F�qm Ngdh From East From south From West itatt;rm-Thru : +y►: . Le— Thru RJO Peds _ v wr LHR T" mp Pads; wiw , Left TMo R" x003 w �w a i4r 07;00 AM 35 2 2 1 40 15 30 19 1 65 1 0 13 0 14 3 58 0 1 62 ; 181 07:15 AM 83 7 4 2 96 5 35 51 0 91 0 2 19 0 21 9 73 1 0 83: 291 07;30 AM 136 3 to 7 162 2 42 67 0 106 0 3 23 0 25 17 90 4 15 1126' 420 7 �5 122 3 18. -2 140 13 55 50 3 121 1 1 "15 92 1. 73` $ 33 1 � Tool 376 S5 40 13 444 35 162 182 4 383 2 0 76 5 91 44 313 B 39 4041 1322 06:00 AM ; 72 0 7 13 92 10 38 39 0 615 - 0 1 17 2 20 7 84 4 2 97: 294 08:15 AM ; 59 1 2 0 62 8 36 33 0 76 ' 0 2 17 0 19 4 61 2 3 70 227 06:30 AM 70 0 1 2 73 5 38 36 0 79 0 0 12 0 12 1 105 1 1 I 108 I 272 QQ:4(i AM 46 3 2 38 0 1 ZQ _ 2 0 _10 0 12 ; 1 1 1 I Total: 241 4 12 15 272 44 162 1" 0 950 2 3 56 2 63 13 309 8 _ 7 337 _ 1022 Grand Told 1 617 19 52 28 7161 79 324 326 4 733 4 9 134 7 1541 57 622 16 46 741 2344 µpp[di % 66.2 2.7 7.3 39 1 10A 44.2 44,5 0.5 26 5.6 67 45 7.7 93.9 2.2 6.2 Total % 26,3 0.6 22 12 30.5 3,4 13.6 13.9 02 31,3 02 0.4 5.7 03 6.6 . 2-4 78.5 0 7 2 31.6 331 Sad&M tgMPM Juampada " l.' e A&4m 4 0%. 97504 North-South: S. Haskell St East-West: E. Pine St Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles S. HaskeO E. Pins St From North From Ent 5tert Left ' Thri rnary prda Left Thr Rig M Ped u a Peak Hour Allelyels From 07:15 AM Iv OS:0-0 RM - Peak 1 o/ 1 Ldt POOR Hoew rpr 910 Ap meM 0-694* at: - Ped App. T� +0 rtkne. 83 1 4 2 96 W 5 35 51 0 +15 mins, 139 3 16 7 162, 2 42 62 0 +30 rMns. 122 3 18 3 146 13 55 50 3 +46 mkx 72 0 7 13 92 10 36 30 0 Tow vamr 413 13 45 25 496 30' 185 202 3 11� ! 83,32,8 9.1 5 i 7.4. 41.7 50.1 0.7 KHF 1 .71t..I04.._ : i7. 794___j1& 250 File Name : Pine-Haskell—Thursday Site Code : 00000003 Start Date : 2/23/2017 Page No :2 332 S, Haske9 E. Pine St --'M! .. 10 .40 . 2$: fw Thro 1M Peas L* From South From West App. Ldt Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Roy Ped App. Inl. Total u ht s Total � u M s Total Tota! !a o CLAY W ort6/M 91 ' 0 2 18 0 21 9 73 1 0 83 108: 0 3 23 0 26 17 90 4 15 126 121 1 1 23 5 30 15 92 3 23 133 Ham; 0 1 17 2_ 20 7 84 4 2 97 403 1 7 82 7 97 48 339 12 40 439 1 72 04.5 7.2 10.9 712 2.7 9.1 038 250 583 861 2350 808 706 .921 750 435 -825 332 in - M64 .07 55 AM 490 --'M! .. 10 .40 . 2$: fw Thro 1M Peas L* 4- Peak Hour Data N.% � 3 !a W 4; �► 4411_�E. P!!!! 1L �_ .. 421 _.. r _Uj In - Peak Naar 15 AM 332 North-South: S. Haskell Street East-West: E. Pine Street Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles Saielf�— OA VIA1e JAarW PodaUos FIpbeddif, LPC A41 411144, 046 97504 Qmgoef Pr[_rt,1@¢_ Vnm (i File Name : Haskell -Pine Site Code : 00000005 Start Date : 2/23/2017 Page No : 1 333 S. Haskell St E. Pine St S. Haskell St E. Pine St From North From East From South From West Swft Time Led Thr+ Rwt Pada u+. Left- TUN FOAM, Peds .p nu Left Thru Rod Pads vow Lel[! Tlru ff4rtl Pada "mar w rqr 02 w P LI 39 3 3 3 48 8 36 38 0 82 2 4 5 1 12 6 37 4 0 47 189 02:15 PM 91 1 14 26 1321 9 Si 70 1 141 2 1 8 3 14 6 54 1 2 63 350 02:30 PM 77 1 10 6 94, 13 63 76 0 152 4 0 13 0 17 5 64 1 0 70 '� 333 U A5 PM e0 0 _ 3 _ 0 . 63 t 19 _ . B2 _58 0 139 4 3 11 2 20 2 51 q 4 57 270 ra+al! 267 5 30 35 337 49 222 242 1 514 12 8 37 6 53 19 206 6 6 237 1151 03:00 PM 44 2 1 2 49 : 8 73 48 1 130 2 2 13 0 17 2 57 0 5 64; 260 03:15 PM 59 0 7 2 68 11 61 59 3 134 2 1 15 0 18 6 67 2 0 75, 295 0330 PM 52 1 3 1 57 22 79 54 1 156 1 2 16 0 19 0 76 2 0 78! 310 ToW ; 221 3 17 5 246 66 318 233 6 6231 5 7 59 0 71' 10 286 5 7 281 1228 04:00 PM 63 0 3 2 68' 18 106 64 2 190 2 1 13 0 16 3 65 0 0 e8 342 04:15 PEA 56 1 4 2 62 1 14 102 72 4 192 0 0 9 0 9 1 89 0 0 70 333 0430 PM 49 0 1 0 50 • 14 98 73 5 190 2 1 10 0 13 1 66 1 0 66 321 04-45 PM g__ j_ . 1 _ _ Q__ _4 , __I. jQ7 _11 Q 187 i 1 _ 7 0 9 4 47 2 1- 34 . 29..3 T01a1 209 1 9 4 223T 55 413 280 11 759 5 3 39 0 47 9 247 3 1 260 t289 05:00 PM : 61 0 1 0 62 16 95 85 0 196 1 2 26 1 30 5 49 2 4 W I 348 0515 PM 51 1 3 0 55 19 120 73 3 215 0 1 15 2 18 1 65 0 0 66 + 354 05:30 PM 56 0 2 3 61 15 88 89 5 197 3 0 14 0 17 2 65 2 0 69 I 344 05:4¢ PM 43 0 2 0 45-0 _ a- 1 1QZ �, 0 �) 4 1¢ 3 _AQ - I_ 9 Ad_Total i 211 1 8 3 223, 59 402 305 9 775 6 3 65 7 81 _ 11 228 5 , 4 2481 1327 GruW Total 908 10 64 47 1029 229 1365 toeo 27 2671 28 21 200 13 262 49 947 19 18 1033 4995 Pptixciz %% 88.2 1 6.2 4.6 8.6 50.7 39.7 1 10.1 8 78,3 5 4.7 91,7 1.8 1.7 Tolat% 162 0.2 1.3 0.9 20.6 4.6 27.1 21.2 0.5 53.5 0.5 0.4 4 0-3 5.2 1 19 0.4 0.4 20,7 333 SN1ts owtpw gwil"Falml ks caph mbF, 2M .,Na4w4 OL 97SC4 North-South: S. Haskell Street East-West: E. Pine Street Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles File Name : Haskell -Pine Site Code : 00000405 Start Date : 2/23/2017 Page No :2 5, Haskell St S. Haskell St E. Pine St From North From East Start left rmu RWw fIrAn .. Left Thr Rg PeU g Time - Leff hi Rip Peak Hoa Analysis From 03.45 PM to 0430 PM - Peak 1 o11 Thr P� Ho1�r �r tech Atmrosch t4aaf� t>< - App. Int ictal ' 6143 PM ht; 0143 ru Total +0 min6. 66 0 6 0 72 25 105 72 1 +15 mins. 63 0 3 2 6s 16 106 64 2 +30 mins. ' 55 1 4 2 62 14 102 72 4 +A_�i 49 0 1_ Q 00 14 0 7>I f TOM Vdmw T 233 1 14 4 252 71 411 281 12 1fA� Ty�l 19Z5 0.4 5.8 _ 1-88 0.2 53 363 15 PHF 063 250 583 500 678 410 969 962 600 File Name : Haskell -Pine Site Code : 00000405 Start Date : 2/23/2017 Page No :2 334 In Part ►Qtf.e3'_45 PM Za2 S. Haskell St E. Pine St From South From West Peak Hour Data App. Leff Thr Rip Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Int ictal u ht; a ; Total u ht s Tobil Tolal 203 0343 iY 0 2 10 0 172 "AJ i 66 1 2 71 190 2 1 13 0 16 3 65 0 0 G& 1922 0 0 9 0 9 1 6! 0 0 70 190 2 1_ IQ Q 2 1 Q� 1 0 63 775 4 4 47 _ 0 55 7 266 2 2 27t 73 7.3 as n, 0 2.S 96 0 7 0.7 954 500 500 eb-3 M6 009 593 964 500 250 975 334 In Part ►Qtf.e3'_45 PM Za2 $441M nhu les Peds r 4 Peak Hour Data a ? * t �� I ���-► r4or0t 4; 4 it LM Tnru WI Pada 4' 4 47 0 05 In • Pea1t Hour V5 PM 334 North-South: OR 99 East-West: E. Pine Street Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles (Thurs) S"Md"A vulp s Jra wpe+rtar "Fes, f" .Modfard, &L 97504 4ro4t» PrHNrad- UnslLif�d File Name : E Pine—OR 99—AM Site Code : 00000004 Start Date : 2/23/2017 Page No : 1 335 OR 99 E_ Pine St OR 99 E. Pine Si From North- From East From South From West Men TI* Left. Thru ; Rl It_Peds -Arun [.sit Thru ragM Pads run t.eQ Thiu Wer Pads Left T_Mt 9-,pPeds OT.00 AM 3 28 76 0 47 21 37 4 0 62 19 30 19 0 68 17 72 27 1 117 294 07:15 AM 7 35 17 0 69 37 47 5 0 69 32 43 14 1 90 33 94 36 2 185 403 07:30AM 11 5s 28 0 97 35 44 9 0 88 36 49 23 0 110 42 140 62 1 245 540 07A& AM _7. 09 -.25 _4 - ..105 ..45. 72 13 - 2 132 41 � Z 134 34 111Q ¢7 Q 237 608 Tnial 28 19 0 88 4 308 198 20 0 31 2 371 130 182 67 3 402 146 422 192 4 764 1845 00-00 AAA 14 54 15 0 83 34 45 16 0 95 28 53 27 2 110 38 104 46 3 19.7 479 08:15 AAA 9 40 21 1 71 37 40 11 0 88 16 55 27 0 98 34 74 30 1 139 396 06:30 AAA 13 57 19 0 89 41 49 7 0 97 13 73 30 0 118 72 62 45 0 199 601 M 2f Q--- 118 Z7.._ ._... 1 - 10 444 Total 52 209 80 1 342 164 192 45 1 402 81 246 113 2 4421 171 312 146 5 634 - 1820 rif and Tu+ai 80 399 188 5 850 302 392 76 3 773 211 426 200 5 644 317 734 338 9 1398 3685 A9pfch % 12.3 81.4 25,5 0.8 39.1 50.7 9.8 0.4 25 50.7 23.7 0.6 22.7 52.5 24.2 0.8 iexal% 22 10,9 4.5 0-1 177. 82 10.7 2.1 01 21.1 5.8 117 55 0.1 23 8.6 20 9.2 0.2 38.1 335 s ao. ,Itagx4 041.97504 North-South: OR 99 East-West: E. Pine Street Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles (Thurs) File Name : E Pine _OR 99 AM Site Code :000006'04 Start Date : 2/23/2017 Page No :2 OR off In • Peels HaW 07' fS AM 344 ---w, kow 2c , 4 i %W -Thr:- Lep Peds- 4- Peak eds4•Peak Hour Data T T i 3 r North L l 41 r i-► Lep rims RW, Peds 139 M 65 5 444 In - Pestk Hour: V 18 AM 336 OR 99 E Pbw St OR 99 E Pine St From North From East From South From West Star[ Thr Rig Ped Apj) Inr Rk3 Ped APP Thr Rig Ped . App. Irt. Tlrrw 1.ali Thm R+,Yr Pm, LaR u ht s Total Leh u hl s Twal Left u h1 s ToW Total Peak Roar Ana"s From 07! 15 Alli to 08:00 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Beguia at rfl ming. N:MAM 7 36 17 0 59 m MAN 37 47 0 89 .71SA 1 32 43 14 t 90 WNW 33 94 38 2 1W •15 mina. 11 58 29 0 97 35 44 9 0 86 38 49 23 0 110 42 148 82 1 246 +30 ming. 7 69 28 4 106 45 72 13 2 132 41 60 31 2 134 54 118 67 0 237 45 mkn 14 54 15 0 83 34 45 18 0 95 28 53 27 7 110 38 104 40 3 191 radvomw 39 218 85 4 344 151 206 43 2 404 139 205 95 5 444 187 454 211 6 838 %!rpp Tar 113 62,8 247 12 V4 51,5 305 0.5 31.3 46,2 214 1 1 19.9 542 25.2 0.7 PHF 690 .783 759 250 B19 639 722 672 250 785 .840 854 .788 .625 820 773 .all .7137 57J 655 OR off In • Peels HaW 07' fS AM 344 ---w, kow 2c , 4 i %W -Thr:- Lep Peds- 4- Peak eds4•Peak Hour Data T T i 3 r North L l 41 r i-► Lep rims RW, Peds 139 M 65 5 444 In - Pestk Hour: V 18 AM 336 7 | | ! � ! f . , � ! | | | | | | ; ■ f �� ] It & 9 A It It U § | 11 I I 1.11 §, |■| |� �, a; ,# m M § § If fill §1� §§ 337 � / t 338 ! i � 3 dpi it S It It It It a� yy e^y � � 1! ! e 4 ■7 1PP a** 41 If 11 a 11 11 11 11 31 #; 11 a s U1 1.l8 3 d 1,911 1.11 d 111 b i 1-111 1.11 I S 1.11 1." e 3 111 1.11 X85 eta i$a �$ 36a fit A .1 .1 J Sofa Fie �Z$a la3 €ax IT. A h G log R 11 C 11 k 11 Y h �Yi #!>f 3=1# % ��I7 LJ6 gr�,5Ya li�� Lts �tltl ��4� list gq YY Y�i➢ lilt YY 11�g1 i i p9 Yi fig 88• j• 338 STOZ•AON SiOZ•daS �.-- — --- -MEMM STOZ9rtf STOZ-AeW SZQZ 1eW 5IQ2-�gf dTOZ•daS - bTOZ-f�Mf - bTfii•AgW Am 00 c viGZ �eW � biII2-'1ef E £[QZ AON ETor-day O � £IQZ-lnf o :g- ETiDZ-AeW O — 0 £[UL-uef W) N N W e ! w I ZTOZ•AON t t; ZIQZ day N V� � ZTDZ-I►�f Z[QZ•AeW 2TOZ•oeW LTOZ•Uef iiOZ-AON TTQZ-daS II�Z•iRf [i0L-Aeyv T[QL-,gyy i > TTQL-uet N � aQ 10 el ne O rl O O G a SO4seJ040 JagtunN 339 O lb A 10 1A a M N r1 s"uj3;o joquwnN 340 o O GF r!J ,AN O" N Cj IL � N �rG o E � MSN y a �r Nzl u �d q. ryJ J � Pad o Geo Py O lb A 10 1A a M N r1 s"uj3;o joquwnN 340 I i I I q N �� O 2 i LL N.-I I ;o � � I I h 4 Z � F O Z LY I I I I Q I � Z I i I I q O I i LL 0 M 00 w u1 cr M nj rl p sagsoj3 jo aagwnN 341 ie - r, n shown in the table should be flagged for further analysis. Exhibit 4-1 Intersection Crash Rates per MEV by Land Type and Traffic Control Rural Urban 3SG 3 S 115 4SG 4ST 3SG 3ST 4SG 4ST _ No. of 7 Intersections 20 60 55 77 l06 60 Mean Crash Rate 0.226 0.196 0.324 0.434 0.275 0.131 0.477 0.198 Median Crash Rate 0.163 0.092 0.320 0267 0.252 0.105 0.420 0.145 Standard Deviation 0.185 0.314 0.223 0.534 0.155 0.121 0.273 0.176 Coefficient of 0,819 Variation _ _ 90 Percentile 0.464 Rate 1.602 0.688 1.230 0.564 0.924 0.572 0.889 0,475 0.579 1.080 0.509 0.293 0.860 0.408 Ci,tuls,:r 1l:x•ti.�t��•n� UI �i,li. ,�;.I. Ind n+n� `ti. i, P.`,I�nrnuN FHwA_(1R-Rrl_1_R_, pryLlylt� �.��8i�' University and Oregon Stale University, Jane 201 t, Table 4. !, p, 47 A has been developed that implements the critical rate calculations for intersections. For additional information see pages 4-35 through 4-39 in HSM Volume I . Example 4-2 illustrates the use of the Critical Rate method for urban area intersections. Example 4-2 HSM Critical Rate for Intersections As part of an urban street modernization project, a safety analysis needs to be done for Main Street. This street is a congested urban corridor with a mixture of unsignatized and signalized intersections with varying numbers of lanes. The project engineer has created existing year average daily traffic (ADT) volumes from available intersection counts. The ADT counts were converted into AADT using appropriate seasonal factors which are shown as daily total entering volumes in the figure below. In addition, intersection crash data for the past five years are shown in the table below. Data Needs. Existing Year Annual Average Daily Entering Traffic Volumes Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 4-5 Last Updated 1212014 342 343 o�� �,r,-��-�,�����, �wd•�wd'dldddd'dd �Z) � n (O`•I O O O O 0 0 0 0 0� 0 lo f O �0_00000��1�C8� o a o 010o�o��o�.�� -- 90 00 O rr O M H .■ dA �p N O� O ^' 1 Q1 00 0-4 l!1•r G ;j d I Q 0 •O .••� V} •O .O M 0 o W O G V'7 O 0 I :rJ dS O N T ON INFig 51 N v !� a-+ �r � Y yy 1 En Uy'1 L: 17 w ✓-• i C? a a6 s 04 b �) O I � O i •� Ci�i � P� `� � 1 z wo t00 1$14a! 46 1 Pea LV C1v Ld lR) CJ CO 6 Q + I{ w P ��ff!! �r U U U 4i U U U U fA /i + fn v1 vs Y ffii AY f4/11 G Y Y IIA N Y Ll i rn Y Ei El �a CN v i o H o M •� fel 0 N 0 rJ' r, 0 , i %0 N v� v1 O O e 0 N 0 N 0 V� V1 0 0 0 C G 4 G G rj o •j G G J o D C3 C:i O C 0 0 0 0 C7 p G �1 —e � ...a .-r o. --I �--� .--� r--� .-ti .•-I ..r ^1 r r r _ ^i ..1 � ^l w.1 A v,, t O VQ C•I r.' rn f-- 0 CJ GO ^-.f 0 v1 M N %0 f Q O 00 Q dw Al C., O C-'1 c* i �O f� C� Gl 41 f•i Pl O •� f�'1 d � V1 00 O� Dl ri r1 N C•1 CJ C..I hl 1 C'J f^4 CI Sal f��rpp1 �M�pp fn rt�'pQ`i �'rs Mpp tM�pp i+'1 it�+pp4 f'n ft�ypp"• 1m 344 ODOT Future Volum Table 2Q13 2035 Growth Rate I Year X89 a scenic 7200 10,100 1.01T - OR . 1OR 99 atIlleeq 14,400 20,100 1.016 TiW CRg [$ GROSSING IMPAC -. Re-routed Traffic Pram Twin Creeks Ralfruad CrosaIna _ AM Peak !lour. Approximately 15% S5 increase on OR 99 or 50l6ps reduction on Haskell Street at Bina (-}50 S8L) Approximately 12% NO iftteAte on OR 99 or 65 trip re YuCtion on Pine a[ Flasks!! (-40 WBR. -25 NBT) PM Peak Haut: Approximataty 12% S8 inCMIW tin OR 99 Or 4S trip reduction on H3ake4 Strew! at Pine (-45 SOL) Approxirnafely 21 % NO inctem on OR 99 or 115 trip reduction an Pine at Haskell ($5 YYBR. -50 WBTI 345 347 Ulll 'r .■ �' ! °!■'- !a] ! zz�7° ! :�■|k ! i « � :z #w | , ¥ tli / � ` ' i■ ` § _ :R - ;� � `- ■ w . r- � ] / ,. § ■ . ,• � } § � - I �. � , - • � r � . - | � « . =a |f. � | � ! ! t a » 4 347 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 54: F Pine St & Front 0310912017 A'1 1 r 4 l d ? r t A( t/ Movcmcnr EBL .M"4111111111, �. An Lane Configurations '; 1 + F fA Traffic Volume (vph) 140 205 95 40 220 85 180 510 225 150 210 45 Future Volume (vph) 140 205 95 40 220 85 180 510 225 150 210 45 Ideal Flow (vphp0 1750 1750 1750 1750 t750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1,00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fri 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Ft Proiecled 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prof) 1568 2810 1511 3907 1359 1628 1699 1420 1568 3008 Ft Permitted 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.54 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 Said. Flow(perm) 1558 2810 1511 3107 1359 930 1699 1420 262 3008 Peak-hmrfactor, P14F 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0-83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 A4. Flow (vph) 169 247 i14 48 265 102 217 614 271 181 253 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 42 0 0 0 Be 0 0 66 0 11 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 169 319 0 48 265 16 217 614 205 181 296 0 Cod. Peds. (#!hr) 4 5 5 4 2 6 6 2 Conti. Bikes (#!hr) 2 3 9 3 HM VehWs 35 6% 13% 8% 1096 7% 7% 2% 3% 2% 6% 8% 4% Tum Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pl NA Prated Phases 5 2 1 6 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 4 4 8 Atua6ed Unw. 6 (a) 14-1 4.H 7.0 14.r1 14.6 63.2 4i.2 4U 63.4 +i.3 Five Green, g (s) 14.1 22.9 7.0 15.8 15.6 53.2 41.2 41.2 53.4 41.3 Aerated gIC Ratty 0.14 0.23 0.07 0.16 0.18 0.54 0.42 0.42 0.54 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Wide Extension s 2.5 4.7 2.5 4.7 4.7 2.6 2.5 25 2.5 2.6 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 222 648 106 494 216 583 705 689 300 1252 vis PAA Prot 00.11 00.11 0.03 0.09 0.05 x0.38 00.07 0.10 vis Ratio Perm 0.01 0.15 0.14 0.25 vie Ratio 0.76 0.49 D,45 0.54 0.08 0.37 0.87 0.35 0.60 0.24 Lk&m Delay, d1 40.9 33,1 44.3 38.3 35.5 12.3 26.6 19.8 16.6 18.7 Progre "Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 1100 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.7 1.1 2.2 1.9 0.3 0.3 11.3 0.3 2.9 0.1 Dalay (s) $4.6 34,2 46.5 40.2 35.6 12.6 37.9 20.1 19.4 16.8 Level of Service D C 0 D 0 B D C B B Approach Delay (s) 40.7 39.8 28.5 19.0 Approach LOS D D C B tntFrSEt tat Summary "- ' } - HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratlo 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 99.2 Sum of lost time (a) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89,1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critioal Lane Group Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 1 348 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 03/09/2017 'x Tum Type SEL. NA SER Perm WT jM NEL NET - Prdected Phases c Critical Lane Group 4 8 Lane Configurations I 1k 2 t. 4 I 1F 6 I t P Traffic Volute (vph) 450 15 50 1 10 90 50 370 15 35 180 220 Future Volume (vph) 450 15 50 1 10 90 50 370 15 35 180 220 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 2.5 Z5 4,0 2,5 4.0 4,0 811 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Uta. Factor 1.00 1.00 Ws R.60 Prot 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Frpb, pedites 1.00 0.96 0.06 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, pedlbikes 0.99 1.00 0.19 Unifann Delay, d1 1.00 7.9 1.00 1.00 23.1 0,97 1.00 1,00 Frt 1,00 0.88 1.00 In 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.99 Incremental Delay, d2 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fl< Protected 0.95 1,00 0.4 0.1 1.00 20.1 0.95 1.00 1&1 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1615 1462 A A 1470 C 1623 1685 8 1620 1549 1405 FI Permitted 0.72 1.00 18.9 1.00 Approach LOS 0.55 1.00 A 0.24 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow 1225 1462 1469 944 M5 408 1549 _ 1405 Peak-hw faCWr. PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.63 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 A4. Flow (vph) 542 18 60 1 12 106 80 4,16 18 42 217 265 RTOR Rodde W (vph) 0 27 0 0 48 0 0 1 0 0 0 174 Um Group Flow (vph) 542 51 0 0 73 0 60 463 0 42 217 91 Cont Peds. Who 7 25 25 7 3 40 40 3 Canis. Bow pho 1 1 Ideav)! V*Jcin (x) 2% 0°la 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 0"la 0% 134E 3% Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Prdected Phases c Critical Lane Group 4 8 6 2 Perrrdted Phases 4 8 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 42.9 42.9 42.9 28.4 25.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 Effective Green, g (s) 42.9 42.9 42.9 26.4 26A 26.4 26.4 26,4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 Gearance Done (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle E>r felon (s) 2.5 2.5 Z5 25 2.5 Z5 2.5 2,5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 679 811 815 322 575 139 529 479 Ws R.60 Prot 0,04 c0.27 0.14 v/s Raba Perm c0.44 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.06 We Raba 0.80 0.06 0.09 0.19 0.60 0.30 0.41 0.19 Unifann Delay, d1 13.7 7.9 8.1 17.9 23.1 18.7 19.5 17.9 Prcgresslon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 In 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.3 0.0 0,0 0.2 7.8 0.9 0.4 0.1 Delay (s) 20.1 8.0 8,1 1&1 30.9 19.6 19.9 18.1 Level of service C A A B C B 8 8 Approach Delay (s) 18.5 811 29.5 18.9 Approach LOS B A C B r�Lt-"�.7t. 77 HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.1 HCM 20L0 Levvi -r Serne C HCM 2000 Vdurw to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77,3 Sum of lim time (s) 8,0 Intersection Copacity Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 349 Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 54: E Pine St & Front 03/1312017 Mornamerlt M8L NGT. MW SEL 343 S0R 465 flE± 301 r v/s Rio Prot c0.16 Lane Configurations ^ e'' t A ti t r Traffic Volume (vph) 246 3910 180 70 210 115 110 355 135 130 465 80 Future Volume (vph) 245 390 180 70 210 115 110 355 135 130 465 60 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 Total Lost time (s) 4,0 4,0 1.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 Delay (s) Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 25.5 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 0,95 C Frpb, pedlbikes 1.00 0.98 6 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 27.2 Flpb, ped/bikes 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 I'd 1.00 0.95 C 1,00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0,95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 140 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flaw (prot) 1630 3053 1630 3260 1410 1630 1716 1428 1630 3198 Fit PermiUed 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 5atd, Flow rm) 1630 3053 1530 3280 1410 492 1716 1428 440 3198 Peak-horur factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Ad). Flow (vph) 255 406 188 73 219 120 115 370 141 135 484 82 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 37 0 0 0 91 0 0 83 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 255 557 0 73 219 29 115 370 58 135 539 C Cod. Peds. (#Thr) 14 14 14 14 1 1 1 1 Conn. Bikes (4fhr) 2 3 9 1 Tum Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 4 3 6 Permitted Phases 6 4 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.9 26.1 7.8 19.0 19,0 31.5 21.6 21.8 30.9 21.5 Ebetive Green, g (s) 114.9 27.11 r'.a 200.0 20,0 311.5 21.0 210 309 s"1.5r Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.33 0.10 0.24 0.24 0,38 0.27 0.27 0.38 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicte e=xtension (s) 2.5 4.7 2.5 4.7 4.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp C3p(vph) 295 1007 154 794 343 323 465 379 301 837 v/s Rio Prot c0.16 c0,18 0.04 0.07 0.04 cO.22 c0.05 0.17 vis Rath Perm 0.02 0.09 0,04 012 v!c Ratio 0.66 0.55 0.47 0.28 0.09 0.36 0.81 0.15 0.45 0.64 Uniform Delay, d1 32.6 22.5 3511.2 25.2 24.0 17.2 26.2 23.1 18.3 28.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 22.0 1.0 1.7 CA 0,2 0.5 10.4 01 0.8 1.5 Delay (s) 54,6 23,6 36.9 25.5 24.2 17.7 38.6 23,2 19.1 28.4 Leve of Service D C D C C 6 D C 0 C Approach Delay (s) 32.9 27.2 31,3 28.8 Approach LOS C C C C inlemecean Sum HCM Mo Cenlrol Do lay 29.9 FILM 2000 Leve] of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capaclty ratio 0,71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 82.1 Bum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 07,0% ICU Levet of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Year 2017 No -Budd, PM Peak Hour Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 350 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 03!1312017 ..,v ti r N f I )f"A 6 Ae I - Movement SEI. SET SER NWL AM NM NEL NET NER Lane Configurations P 4• 1 ll� 1 e Traffic Volume (vph) 255 1 15 5 5 50 10 290 2 75 445 305 Future Volume (vph) 255 1 15 5 5 50 10 290 2 75 445 305 Ideal Row(vphpq 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 Lane U61. Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, pedlbkos 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.86 0.89 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Saul. Flow (prot) 1614 1471 1494 1652 1681 1597 1699 1396 Fk Permil6od 0.72 1.00 0.99 0.36 1.00 0.55 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow(perm) 1216 1471 1481 683 1681 928 1699 1396 Peak-hwilaclar, PHF 0,94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 O.B4 0.94 Adj. Flow(vph) 271 1 16 5 5 53 11 309 2 80 473 324 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 Sri 0 0 0 0 0 0 173 Lane Group Flow (vph) 271 6 0 0 28 0 11 311 0 80 473 151 Card!. Peds. (W) 4 4 12 2 2 12 Card. Sites (Who 1 1 Heavy Vehldes C1.) 3% 0% 0% 6% 0% 4% 0% 4% 0% 4% 3% 3% Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA peas NA Pam NA Perm PWMCled phases 4 8 6 2 Piermilw Phases 4 8 6 2 2 AduaEed Green, G (s) 14.2 14.2 14.2 19,3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 Effective Green, g (s) 14.2 14,2 14.2 19,3 1a.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 Actuated 91C Ratio 0.34 0,34 0,34 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 V_ehide Extension (s) _ 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 _ Lane Grp Cap(vph) 416 503 506 317 781 431 790 649 v/s Ralfo Prot 0.00 0.18 c0.28 v/s Rdo Perri c0.22 0,02 0.02 0,09 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.40 0.19 0.60 0.23 Unftm Delay, d1 11,6 9.0 9.2 B.0 7.3 6.5 8.2 6.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Irscreo ental Delay, d2 3,2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0,2 1,0 0.1 Delay (s) 14.8 9.0 9.2 6.1 7.5 6.7 9.3 6,8 Level of Service B A A A A A A A Approach Delay (e) 14.5 9.2 7.5 8.1 Approach LOS B A A A InIL4SeM r 51m'�- HCM 2000 �antrcl Ceiay 9.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0,62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 41.5 Sum of last time (s) B.0 Intersection Capacity UtlIWIon 61,8% ICU Level of Service 8 Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Year 2017 N"uild, PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 2 351 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 03/1112017 Summary of All Intervals Run Ndrrdw 1 2 3 - 4- 'A w .AI _ Start Time _ 7:10 7:10 T:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 End Time 8:15 8.15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 Total Time (min) 65 65 65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vats Entered 2925 2995 2923 3027 3007 2974 Vehs Exited 2947 3037 2941 3037 3023 2997 Starting Vehs 80 106 75 79 77 80 Ending Vehs 58 64 57 69 61 59 Travel Distance (mi) 1006 1012 996 1032 1029 1015 Travel Time (hr) 77.5 78.7 72.2 96.4 83.8 81,3 Total Delay (hr) 38.9 37.8 34.0 56.7 44.1 42.3 Total Stops 3851 3846 3656 4205 3966 3007 Fuel Used (gal) 45.1 45.5 1qf.� 50,5 47.8 46.5 Interval #0 Information Seeding Stent Time 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min) 5 Vciumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors No data recorded This herva Interval #1 Information Recordin St Tine 7.15 End Time 7:30 Total i ime (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth factors. Run Number 1 2 3. -4. - Veiis Entered 831 832 767 813 608 890 Vehs Exited 814 794 764 766 755 780 Starting Veha 80 106 75 79 77 80 Ending Vehs 97 144 78 126 130 112 Travel Distance (ml) 285 277 272 268 269 274 Travel Time Or) 24.1 24.8 24.3 24.1 24,9 24.4 Total Delay (hr) 13.1 14.1 13.8 13.8 14.6 13.9 Total Stops 1126 1207 1145 1112 1168 1152 Fuel Used (gal) 13.2 13.4 13.0 12.9 13.0 13.1 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 352 SimTrafflc Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 03/11/2017 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF, Run Number1 _ 2 3 4 5 Vehs Entered 2094 2163 2156 2214 2199 2167 Vehs E>oled 2133 2243 2177 2271 2268 2219 Starting Vohs 97 144 78 126 130 112 Eng Vehs 58 64 57 69 61 59 Travel Distance (mi) 721 736 724 764 760 741 TreMel Time (hr) 53.4 51.9 48.0 72.3 58.9 56.9 Total Delay (hr) 25.7 23.6 20.1 42.9 29.5 28.4 Total Stops 2725 2639 2511 3093 2798 2756 Fuel Used (gal) 31.9 32.1 31.0 37.7 34.6 33.5 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 353 SlmTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour Intersection: 48: E Pine St & 2nd 03111/2017 Movement SE K"U. _UE_ NE SP �Y,1 Directions Served LTR LTR LT TR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 78 103 69 90 112 64 Average Queue (ft) 39 43 20 15 37 4 95th Queue (ft) 61 79 54 63 86 29 Link Distance (tt) 354 346 233 259 259 Upstream 81kTime (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dili (ft) 50 Slorage 81k T-une (%) 0 1 Queuing Pon* (veh) 1 2 Intersection: 51: E Pine St & 1st Nlcrverncnt SE NW NE SW syl 0�fkoiu[i5 Sefi'ad JR IT R JR LT TR MeAmran Queue (ft) W 103 Wl 93 126 Average Queue (ft) 28 44 28 22 15 951h Queue (1t) 56 M 106 6T 74 Link Distance (ft) 313 295 221 233 233 Upslreim 61k Toe (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storap Bay Dist (fl) Storage SW Time (%) aming Penalty (veh) Creekslde Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 354 SimTraffic Report Page 3 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build. AM Peak Hour 03/11/2017 Intersection: 54; E Pine St & Front "hovement tR No tie 8$ . Se S$ SB NE_ 178 Link Distance (ft) TR Upsbm Olk Time (%) Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 224 298 231 117 189 157 104 203 317 125 194 233 Average Queue (ft) 114 98 80 38 99 55 38 84 289 102 89 145 95th Queue (ft) 216 233 175 87 167 128 76 153 323 168 162 266 Link Distance (ft) 316 316 327 327 222 222 221 221 Upstream Elk Time 1 0 0 39 0 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 0 1 178 0 8 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 150 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 9 0 0 0 0 49 1 11 Queuing Penaity (veh) 10 0 0 0 0 112 7 16 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Mowwt �y 5 - — Directions Served TR Mwimum Queue (ft) 150 Average Queue (ft) 112 951h Queue (ft) 178 Link Distance (ft) TR Upsbm Olk Time (%) 49 Queuing Penally (veh) 323 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125 5zacarge S& Time (9'.) 10 Queuing Penalty (veh) 11 Intersection: 57: E Pine St & Movement 10 HE NE 3k: Siff Direc OM Served R T TR T TR Maid num Queue (1t) 49 125 323 143 109 Average Queue (ft) 12 67 206 11 7 95th Queue (ft) 39 166 383 69 52 Link Diswce (it) 247 276 222 222 Upstream Bk Time (%) 8 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 78 1 0 atorage Bey pint (ft) 100 Storage Bilk Time (%) 0 24 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 111 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 355 ShTraffic Report Page 4 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 03/11/2017 Intersection. 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. intersection: 64: Front & Oak MovWW2 - — -NS - cls S6 3.5 SB S Y T Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 795 175 116 199 723 134 257 151 Average Queue (t) 317 30 43 62 296 33 89 59 95th Queue (ft) 762 167 86 172 671 84 189 113 Llnk Distance (ft) 1332 1332 366 Queuing Penally (veh) 929 276 276 Upstream Bik Time (%) SWAP Bay Did (ft) 2 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 0 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Intersection: 66: Front 8r. Manzanita 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 40 0 10 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 21 0 4 intersection: 64: Front & Oak MovWW2 - — -NS - cls S6 3.5 SB S �:ir�L4� 1 J�iY T 1R L •s T LR Maximum Ounce (2) 39 29 51 36 56 76 Averop Queue (ft) 3 1 18 2 2 39 951h Queue (ft) 27 10 49 17 24 62 Link Dtetance (ft) 491 491 316 316 194 Upstream Sk Time (%) Queuing Penally (veh) SWAP Bay Did (ft) 50 blorage Sk Tlme ('Y.) 1 0 Intersection: 66: Front 8r. Manzanita Stores 81k Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Peoafr 672 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 356 SlmTrafflc Report Page 5 NB S6 S8 Dfreoti serwd T TR L T T LR luk ftM Qusue (ft) 14 36 35 24 20 69 Average Queue (ft) 1 1 4 1 1 29 95th Queue (ft) 9 16 21 13 9 55 Link Distance (ft) 327 327 421 421 164 Upstream Blk Tine (%) Queukng Penalty (veh) Storage Bey Det (ft) 100 Stores 81k Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Peoafr 672 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 356 SlmTrafflc Report Page 5 SirrTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build Isolated Intersection Evaluation, AM Peak Hour 03/13/2017 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3. Y ' - Start Time 7:05 7:05 7:05 7:05 7:05 7:05 End Time 810 8.10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 Total Time (min) 65 65 65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 80 # of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 1444 1510 1441 1483 1458 1467 Vehs Exited 1462 1523 1472 1499 1459 1483 Starting Vehs 51 44 52 45 36 45 Ening Vehs 33 31 21 29 35 29 Travel Distance (mi) 701 729 699 723 707 712 Travel Time (hr) 34.1 35-8 34.5 35.1 35.3 35.0 Total Delay (hr) 6.5 7.0 7.1 6.7 7.4 6.9 Total Stops 922 975 943 948 990 1155 Fuel Used (gal) 24-3 25.0 24.3 24.8 24.8 24.6 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:05 End Time 7.10 Total Time (min) 5 Volumes ad usted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data worded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recordin Start Time 7:10 End Time 7:25 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number1 - - - 2 3- 4. _ - Vis Entered 421 4111 444 443 463 43T Volts Exited 434 415 449 441 449 430 Starting Vehs 51 44 52 45 36 45 Ending Vehs 36 43 47 47 50 45 Travel Distance (mi) 207 197 218 214 224 212 Travel Time (hr) 10.6 101 11.8 10.9 11.8 11.0 Total Delay (hr) 2.4 2.3 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.7 Total Stops 285 280 330 303 335 308 Fuel Used (gal) 7.3 6.9 7.8 7.4 8.0 7,5 Creekalde Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 357 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 Na -Build Isolated Intersection Evaluation, AM Peak Hour 03/13/2C17 Interval #2 Information Recordin Start Time 725 End Time 8;10 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anli PHF Run dumber 1 _2 _$ 4 '� 7f`- •'� -- - – — Vehs Entered 1023 1G96 997 1D40 895 1031 Veho E#ed 1028 1108 1023 1058 1010 1045 Starting Vohs 38 43 47 47 50 45 Ending Vehs 33 31 21 29 35 29 Travel Distance (nv) 494 531 462 509 483 300 Travel Time (hr) 23.5 25.7 22.9 24.2 23.4 24.0 Total Delay (hr) 4.1 4.6 4,0 4.2 4.4 4.3 Total Sops 637 695 613 645 655 548 Fuel Used (gal) 16.9 18,2 16.5 17.4 15.9 17.2 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 358 SimTrafflc Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build Isolated Intersection Evaluation, AM Peak Hour 03/1312017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Wvement SE S£ MN NE NE SW SW . Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T R Aa)dmum Queue (it) 307 55 98 177 344 112 229 99 Average Queue (R) 152 17 35 46 142 32 76 51 95th Queue (ft) 254 43 75 127 265 79 163 84 Link Distance (ft) 1331 1331 386 929 1457 1457 Upslrw Sk Tim (%) Queuing Penally (veh) swap Baty Dist (ft) 100 100 Storage 131k Time (°%) 0 15 0 4 Queuing Pvwty (veh) 1 8 1 1 Network Summary Network vide Queuing Penally: l l Creekslde Apartment Development Traffic Anatysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 359 SimTrafk Report Page 3 SimTrafl•Ic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 0311212017 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 SEart Time 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 End Tsne 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 Total Time (min) 65 65 65 65 65 65 The Reoorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 0 of intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Rseotded k*Vds 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 2952 3008 2950 2980 3014 2980 Vehs Exited 2986 3016 2967 2988 3017 2994 Staling Vehs 87 67 82 64 68 TO Erxfing Vehs 53 57 65 56 65 57 Travel Okance ("NJ 1008 1010 989 1014 1017 1008 Travel Tine (hq 64.8 63.8 60.6 84.7 63.2 634 Total Delay (hr) 25.9 24.7 22.5 25.6 24.1 24.8 Tafel ft" 3337 3322 3160 3327 3306 32$3 Fuel Used (gal) 43.0 42.3 41.5 42.6 42.4 42.4 Interval #0 Information Seedin SWUM 7:10 End Time 7:15 Tocol Trine (min] 5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth FaAors. No data recorded this hbrvoL Interval #1 Information Recordin SWUM 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjasted by PHF, Growth Fachors. 4 1 2. -609 Veba Enww 852 828 853 779 822 Vehs Exited 835 805 840 833 772 819 Starting vehs 87 67 82 64 Be 70 Ending Vehs 104 71 70 84 75 75 Travel Distance (mi) 297 280 288 301 267 287 Tri Time (hr 20.4 18.2 19.0 20.8 17.6 19.2 Total Delay (hr) 9.0 7.5 7,9 9.0 7.3 8.1 Total Slope 1086 963 1005 1071 929 1008 Fuel Used Woo 12.8 12,0 12.4 13.0 11.4 12.3 Creekside Apartment Gevalcpment Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 360 SimTraFf c Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 03/12/2017 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, And PHF. Run Numb& 1 2 3 4 5 A Vehs Entered 2100 2199 2122 2127 2235 2159 Vehs Exited 2151 2213 2127 2155 2245 2119 Starting Vehs 104 71 70 84 75 75 Ending Vehs 53 57 66 56 65 57 Travel Distance (mi) 712 729 701 713 750 721 Travel Time (hr) 44.4 45.4 41.5 44.0 45.6 44.2 Total Delay (hr) 17.0 17.2 14.6 16.6 16.8 16.4 Tial Stops 2271 2359 2155 2256 2379 2283 Fuel Used (gaf) 30.2 30.4 29.0 29.6 31.0 3.0.0 Creekskle Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 361 SimTradfic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 03/12/2017 Intersection: 48: E Pine St & 2nd Mes<nent. SE NW NE NE _ SW SW 0irecbans Served LTR LTR LT TR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft} 86 95 80 85 110 38 Average Queue (ft) 37 43 28 11 29 6 95th Queue (ft) 66 74 70 48 75 30 Link Distance (ft) 354 346 234 234 259 259 Up "Arn I* Tkne M 0 amkv Fft* (veil) Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Bay DO01) Storage a Time (9G) QUM" Penalty("h) Intersection: 51: E Pine St & 1st Movetr LT TR LT TR Ovections Served LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 54 92 75 80 101 132 Average Queue (fQ 25 41 13 7 19 13 90 Queue(1) 55 72 51 41 64 75 Link Dstarre M 319 288 222 222 234 234 Upwo m etc Tune ('16) 0 amkv Fft* (veil) 0 Slow 8MY Dial A Storage Bilk Time (%) 0wWn9 Pena9jr (w�h) Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 362 SimTraffic Report Page 3 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Miti ated 03112017 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Mawmear NO INS MS. 83 99 0 .SB NE 4 WE8W TR $4V Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T TR L T Ma>amum Queue (R) 220 271 206 108 185 136 69 200 273 296 191 226 Average Queue (11) 102 73 64 37 63 37 35 87 162 208 82 140 95th Queue (R) 188 169 131 88 143 96 65 171 255 299 150 246 Link Distance (tt) 318 318 328 328 223 223 222 222 Upstream Blk Torre (96) 0 2 7 0 3 Queuing Penally (veh) 0 7 33 0 6 Shxage Bay Dist (it) 200 200 150 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 0 0 4 20 13 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 0 11 37 20 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Atoverr" sw Direr#s Servet TR Mwditm Queue (Iq 157 Average Queue (111) 115 951h Queue (R) 179 Link 1 istaxe (R) TR Upstream sk Time N 35 Queuing Penally (veh) 67 Sbw Bay ON (It) 125 Storage 81 Trrrre rl.) 11 Queuing Pendy (veh) 12 Intersection: 57: E Pine St & Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 363 SimTrafflc Report Page 4 fa NE NIE 6111 W. _ Directions Served R T TR T TR Maximum Queue (it) 35 73 67 62 48 Average Queue (f 7 12 16 9 6 95th Queue (ta 28 47 61 44 34 Link Distarm (A) 241 276 276 223 223 Upstream Elk TNne (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (11`111) Storage Bilk Tone (%) Queuing Pity (veh) Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 363 SimTrafflc Report Page 4 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 0311212017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. M�t 9E SE NW VE Nli: SW .. SW SW Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T R f,Neximw Queue (ft) 321 112 91 195 284 69 181 158 Average Queue (ft) 156 20 35 36 136 27 80 59 95fh Queue (fl) 277 68 68 100 246 63 155 112 Link Distance (ft) 1331 1331 373 Queuing Penatty (veh) 929 276 276 Lipsum OR Tkm (%) ftW 6a Dist (fli) 50 Queuing penalty (veh) 0 0 amukig FefR4 (veil) Sio w Bay Dist (ft) 1 0 100 Intersection: 66: Front & Manzanita 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 13 0 4 QuWN penalty (vsh) 0 7 0 2 Intersection: 64: Front & Oak I44aver" M "a w 0:_ _ SB GIN: Directions Served T TR L T T LR AAa> to na ciuew (R) 13 36 53 14 30 82 Average tie (ft) 1 1 18 1 1 39 9% amw (A) 6 14 48 9 14 64 Link Didance M 491 491 318 318 194 Upsh". Bloc Tune (%) Queuing Penatty (veh) ftW 6a Dist (fli) 50 SWape Blk Time (%) 0 0 amukig FefR4 (veil) 1 0 Intersection: 66: Front & Manzanita I44aver" M "a w 0:_ _ SB GIN: Oirecfions Served T TR L T T LR Maximum Queue (IC) 7 13 40 31 14 60 Average Queue (tt) 0 0 5 2 0 31 ON am* (11) S 7 26 18 7 55 Link DI9tr`MM (tt) 328 328 421 421 184 upstream IN Time N Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage stk Tune (%) OWIng Nflalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penatty:140 — Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 364 SimTrafflc Report Page 5 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build, PM Peak Hour 03/09/2017 Summary of All Intervals Run Numtyer 1 2 3 R Start Time 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3;40 End Tins; 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 Total Time (min) 65 65 65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 3044 3026 3207 2969 2972 3042 Vehs Faded 3057 3042 3163 2975 2994 3047 SW*g Vehs 61 66 51 68 90 65 Ending Vehs 48 50 95 62 Be 60 Trawl Distance (m) 923 914 964 901 920 924 Travel Time (hr) 69.1 70.6 66.7 64.5 83.5 74,9 Total De* (hr) 33.3 35.2 49.5 296 47.9 39.1 Total Stops 3979 3714 4496 3566 3943 3937 Fuel Used (gal) 42.7 43.0 48.1 40.9 46-2 44.2 Interval #0 Information Seedin Start Time 3.40 End Time 3:45 Total Time (nin) 5 Volumes act rated by PHF, Growth Faclom. No data recorded Oes interval. Interval #1 Information Record Start Time 3:45 End Time 4:00 Total Tune (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors, - ------ ' 2 A Veils Entered 85a 787 882 837 M 841 Vehs Exited 839 797 833 834 832 828 Starling Vehs 61 66 51 63 90 65 Ending Vehs 80 56 100 71 96 77 Travel Distance (m) 247 229 251 248 249 245 Travel Time (hr) 18.6 16.4 19,1 19.1 23.2 19.3 Total Delay (hr) 9.0 7.5 9.4 9.5 13.6 9.8 Total Stops 1081 883 1082 1028 1151 1043 Fuel Used (gaff 11.4 10.3 111 11.6 12.8 t 1.6 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Tran,lmrtation Engineering 365 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build, PM Peak Hour 03/09/2017 Interval #2 Information Recording Sort Time 4:00 End Time 4:45 Total Time (min) 45 Volurnes ad(usted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF Run Numb& 2 .3 4 5. Ag Vehs Entered N 2186 2239 2325 2132 2134 2202 VWw Exited 2218 2245 2330 2141 2162 2220 Starting Vohs 80 56 100 71 96 77 Ending Vohs 48 50 95 62 68 60 Travel Distwee (ml) 676 685 713 653 671 679 Travel Ting (hr) 50.6 54.2 67.6 45.4 60.2 65.6 Total Delay (In j 24.3 27.7 40.1 20.1 34.3 29.3 Total Stops 2896 2831 31414 2538 2792 2896 Fuel Used [gaf) 31 3 32.6 36,4 29,3 X.i i 3? 5 Cre*slde Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southem Oregon Transportation Engineering 366 SknTrafflc Report Paget Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, PM Peak Hour 03109!2017 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Movement NS Me �X $8 SB SB £$ r.E ME rM TR Upstrew Blk rim (9G) Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T MaXNMm Queue(fo 224 323 304 122 167 118 92 136 242 125 162 244 Average Queue (ft) 180 184 158 53 80 39 42 59 220 96 73 206 90 Queue(ft) 262 375 306 101 138 100 74 109 262 168 127 279 Link D (ft) 316 316 327 327 222 222 221 221 Up&wn 80t rime 17 0 26 15 Queuing Penally (vo) 69 1 78 49 Storip Bey Dist (ft) 200 200 150 100 Storage Bfir Time (9L) 32 0 0 0 54 1 28 Quecax] PwoRy (veh) 62 0 0 0 73 2 83 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Movemew Sw ❑i ecffma Served TR Maarrum Q"01) 152 Awf age Queue (ft) 135 95th Queue (R) 180 Lark Drstanoe (ft) TR Upstrew Blk rim (9G) 38 QMft Perrafty (veh) 290 Sivrage Bay Dist (N) 125 Storage Btk rime (%) 15 Queuing PM* (vah) 34 Intersection: 57: E Pine St & >ti1E~ N6 NE NE SIN. VY _ z Direcfi" Served R T TR T TR Maximum Queue (It) 38 124 290 121 76 Average Queue (t) 6 36 149 19 8 95th Queue (A) 27 125 324 79 41 Link Distance (ft) 247 276 222 222 Upstream BlIt Time (96) 5 awing Penally (veh) 30 atarape Bay DW (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 19 Queuing penally tmh) 0 58 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Souiliern OmW Transportation Engineering 367 ShTraffic Report Page 3 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, PM Peak Hour 03/0912017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St Movsmrnt a : _ - -8E SE NX NE RE SW SUV SA Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 170 71 72 53 224 122 290 115 Average Queue (ft) 84 7 28 10 92 47 133 62 go Queue (ft) 146 39 61 39 174 109 251 105 Link Distance (ft) 467 386 455 276 276 upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penally (veh) 2 $forage Bay L1>st (10 150 100 100 Storage Bik Time (%) 1 8 1 9 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 2 7 Zone Summary Zane wide OwAg Penw. 551 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southam Oregon Transportation Engineering 368 SimTraffic Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 07/07/2017 Moveaw, SEL SET SER, ESWL A_ .NWR NEL NET V/s Ratio Prot c Critical Lane Group 0.03 Lane Can figurations °I 1• 0.12 4. c0.40 _ *% i 0.06 t Zr Traffic Volume (vph) 405 16 50 1 12 109 50 375 16 36 160 165 Future Volume (vph) 405 16 50 1 12 109 50 375 16 38 160 185 Ideal Flow (vphpQ 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1760 1750 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 24.5 16.2 4.0 15,0 4.0 4.0 A 4,0 4,0 4.0 Lane UW. Factor 1.00 1,00 Apprh Delay (s) 1,00 8.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, peftkes 1.00 0,96 C 0.97 B 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 0,97 Flpb, pedWkes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,98 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 0.88 1.00 0.99 1.00 1,00 0,85 FK Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 D.95 1.00 0.95 1,00 1,00 Sa1td. Flow (pros) 1617 1471 1471 1823 1685 1622 1549 1406 FK Pbrmilted 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Satd.Fi3w 1203 1471 1471 1043 1685 4&7 1549 1406 Peale hoor WIN, PHF 0,65 0.85 0,85 0.85 0,85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 A4 Flow (vph) 476 19 59 1 14 128 59 441 19 45 188 218 RTOR Re&cbm (vph) 0 28 0 0 61 0 0 1 0 0 0 140 Lane Group Flow (vph) 476 50 0 0 82 0 59 459 0 45 188 78 owl Pads. (Mw) 7 25 25 7 3 40 40 3 CMA- Dikes (#1M 1 1 Heavy Vd*** (%) 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 13%, 3% Tum Type PQFTn NA Perm NA Perm M Perm NA Perm Pioleclied Phases 4 8 6 2 PermiNed Phases 4 8 6 2 2 Aerated Green, G (s) 35.8 35.8 35.8 24.5 24.5 24.5 243 24,5 Effective Green, g (s) 35.8 35.8 35.8 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 Asivated g/C Ratio 0,52 0.52 0.52 0.36 0.36 0.36 0,36 0,36 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 Vehicle Extensions 2.5 2.5 2,5 25 25 2.5 25 25 I.,ve Grp Cap (vph) 630 771 771 374 604 167 555 504 V/s Ratio Prot c Critical Lane Group 0.03 cO.27 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm c0.40 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.06 Vic Ratio 0.76 0.06 0.11 0.16 0.76 0.27 0.34 0.16 Uniform Detay, d1 12.8 8.0 8.2 14.9 19.3 15.5 16.0 14.9 Progress= Factor 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Ijityemenial Delay, d2 4.9 0A 0.0 0.1 5.2 0.6 0.3 0,1 Delay (s) 17,7 8.0 8,2 15.0 24.5 16.2 16.3 15,0 Level of Service B A A B C 8 8 B Apprh Delay (s) 16,3 8.2 23.4 15,6 Approach LOS 9 A C B lntersec on Summa HCFA 2000 Conlrol Delay 17.7 HCM 2000 Level of Santee B HCM 2000 Volume to Capadty ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.3 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capaaty Utilization 75,7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fellows Annexation I ZC Traffic Analysis Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Horn Synchro 9 Report Southem Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 2 369 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60; E Pine St & Haskell St, 07/0712017 hfoyement SEL aT SIER >&2, NWT NWR NEL NO tai_ w Lane Configurations 4- "i t' 1 ? Traffic Volume (vph) 405 16 50 1 12 109 50 375 16 38 160 185 Future Volume (vph) 405 16 50 1 12 109 50 375 16 38 160 185 Ideal Flow (vphpQ 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 Total Lost time (s) 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane UUL Factor 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1,00 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Fit 1.00 0.89 0.88 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fft Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 SaW. Flow (prot) 1622 1471 1487 1623 1685 1622 1549 1406 Fk Permitted 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 S_atd. Flow (perm)_ 1207 1471 _ 1486 1044 1695 468 1549 1406 Peg -hour lardor, PHF 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.65 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.$6 0.86 0.85 All, Flow (vph) 47R 19 59 1 14 128 159 441 19 46 188 218 RTOR Redudlon (vph) 0 28 0 0 61 0 0 1 0 0 0 140 Lane Grtxrp Flow (vph) 476 50 0 0 82 0 59 459 0 45 188 78 Cont Pads. (Who 7 25 26 7 3 40 40 3 Cod. Bikes (Nhr) 1 1 Heavy Vehides (5 2°% 0% 2% ON 0% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0°% 13% 3% Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perrn Pmtecled Phases 4 8 6 2 Parked Phases 4 2 2 f1t{I,IO LGL 171 W14, u �bj eea Sea JN.V Ota W.V `TA Iii &-. yea OId �, - �4 OJ.V Efliedive Green, g (s) 35.6 35.6 35.6 24 4 24.4 24.4 24A 24.4 Actuated gfC Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.38 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vddde Edensian W 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 631 770 777 374 604 167 555 504 vis Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.27 0.12 vis Ratio Perm c0.39 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.06 vrc Ratio 0.75 0.06 0.11 0.16 0.76 0.27 0.34 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 12.8 8.0 8.2 14.8 19.2 15,5 15.9 14.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Incremental Delay, d2 4,9 0,0 OA 0,1 5.2 0.6 0.3 0.1 Way (s) 17.6 810 8.2 15.0 24A 16.1 18.2 14,9 Level of Service B A A B C e B 8 Approach May (s) 16.3 8.2 23.3 15.6 Approach LOS B A C B HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.7% ICU Level of Service 0 Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fellows Annexation I ZC Traffic Analysis Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 1 370 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 No -Build. AM Peak Hour 07/07/2017 Summary of All Intervals Run Num➢er 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Start Time 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7.10 End Time 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 Total Time (min) 65 65 65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 80 60 60 60 #of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 2911 2983 2982 29M 2956 2956 Vets Exited 2937 2983 2992 2967 2941 2962 Stwft Vehs 86 71 65 73 67 71 Ending Vohs 60 71 55 60 82 60 Traver Distance (mi) 994 988 1012 990 995 996 Travel TNN (hr) 73.2 79,2 75.9 75.7 80.8 77.0 Total Delay (hr) 35.1 41.2 37,0 37.6 42,4 38.7 TUBI Stops 3661 3852 3924 3876 3881 3837 Fuel Used (ga) 439 45.3 45,3 44.5 45.8 45,0 Interval #0 Information Seeding start Time 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Tena (min) 5 Vduines adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors No data retarded this Interval. Interval #1 Information Recordin S'.art Time 7:15 End Tune 7:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Facial. ern [dumber 1 2 3 4 5 Ail Vehs Entered 161 602 7B3 799 772 T81 Veho Eded 749 745 747 789 757 759 Starting Vel►s 86 71 65 73 67 71 Ending Vohs 98 128 101 83 82 98 Travel Distance (m) 263 262 268 272 265 266 Travel Tune (hr) 23.8 27.5 27.3 23.6 19.7 23.2 Total Delay (hr) 13.7 17.4 11.1 13,2 9.4 13.0 Total Stops 1125 1218 1055 1166 982 1107 Fuel Used (gal) 12.6 13.4 12,3 12.9 11.7 12.6 Fellows Annexation I ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 371 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SlmTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 07/0712017 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run .Number _ 1 2 3 4 _ _ _ AAMMUMOLL Vahs Entered _ 2154 2181 2199 2155 2184 2175 Vehs Exited 2188 2238 2245 2178 2184 2207 Starting Vohs 98 128 101 83 82 96 Endng Vehs 60 71 55 60 82 60 Travel Distance (mi) 730 726 744 718 730 730 Travel Time (ho 49.4 51.7 54.7 52.0 61.1 53.8 Total Delay (hr) 21.4 23.8 26.0 24.5 32.9 25.7 Total Stops Fuel Used (gal) Fellows Annexation t ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 25M 2634 2669 2710 2899 2730 31.3 31.9 33.0 31.6 34.1 32.4 372 SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 07107/2017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. lit! 8E . SE - NW HE tva~ SW +1lfrOW - Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 514 133 119 200 756 126 226 103 Average Queue (ft) 218 24 51 63 311 35 83 51 95th Queue (t) 439 76 100 160 705 Be 169 89 Link Distance (ft) 1332 1332 386 929 276 276 Upstream Blk Time 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 39 1 6 Queuing Penally (veh) 2 20 2 2 Zone Summary Zone We Queuing Penally: 26 Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 373 SimTrafflc Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Desiun Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 0710712017 Summary of All Intervals Run Humber i 2' . Slant rune 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 End Time 8:15 8:15 8:15 6:15 8:15 8:15 Total Time (min) 65 85 65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 2926 2968 2984 2919 2941 2947 Vohs Exited 2926 3013 2995 2918 2936 2955 Starting Vohs 65 90 80 61 61 70 Enft Vohs 66 45 69 62 86 56 Travel Distance (rnl) 966 1006 992 979 974 983 Travel Time (hr) 60.3 63.3 60.2 60.6 592 60.6 Total Delay (h) 23.0 24.5 21.9 23.1 21.8 22.9 Total Stoll 3150 3192 3140 3114 3228 3166 Fuel Used (gal) 40.9 42.0 411 41.0 40.8 41.2 Interval 00 Information Seedi SW Time 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Tana (min) 5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No dete MK*rdod Mk m l o v.el Interval #1 Information Recording SWUM 7:15 End Time 7:30 Toth Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factars. Rua Nurhlrar 1 2 Vehs Entered 824 944 798 807 797 815 Vohs Exited 824 853 793 777 785 809 Starting Vohs 65 90 80 61 61 70 Ending Vohs 69 61 86 91 73 79 Travel Distance (mij 285 291 Z71 275 272 279 Travel Time (hr) 19.8 20.0 17.4 18.0 17.3 18.5 Total Delay (hr) 9.8 8.7 7.0 7.4 6.8 7.8 Total 8" 1018 1039 933 944 926 973 Fuel Used (gal) 12.5 12,7 11.4 11.7 11.6 12.0 Fellows Annexation 1 ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportadon Engineering 374 StimTraftic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour_ Mitigated 0710712017 Interval #2 Information Recordin Start Time 7:30 End Time 6:15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, And PHF. Run NurnbcT 1 2 3 d 6. A40- Vc.hs Fnre-ed 2102 2124 2186 21 Q 21,14 2135 Vohs Exited 2106 2160 2202 2141 2151 2153 Starting Vehs 69 81 85 91 73 78 End'mg Vehs 65 45 69 62 66 56 Travel Distance (mi) 681 715 721 704 702 705 Travel Time 00 40.5 43.3 42.8 42.8 41.9 42.3 Total Delay (hr) 14.2 15.7 15.0 15.7 14.9 15.1 Total Stops 2132 2153 2207 2170 2302 2196 Fuel Used (gar) 28.4 29.3 29.7 29.3 29.2 29.2 Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 375 SimTraffle Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated _ 07107/2017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Movement _- -Am �,a NW _ NE NE SW M Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 363 75 90 176 368 117 174 117 Average Queue (ft) 145 20 35 38 133 29 69 50 95th Queue (ft) 289 51 72 105 263 76 144 98 Link Distance (1) 1331 1331 373 929 276 276 Lott olm ek Time (96) Queuing Pen* (veh) Storage Bay Dist (fq 100 100 Stomps Blk Tmte (%) 0 12 0 3 4uet" Panay (veh) 1 7 0 1 Zone Summary Zone We (queuing Penalty: 9 Fellows Annexallon I ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 376 SimTra k Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 07/07/2017 SET SER N%. NVV,T NWR am Lane Configurations Vi 1. ,11 r Traffic Volume (vph) 405 17 50 1 13 115 50 375 18 39 160 185 Future Volume (vph) 405 17 50 1 13 115 50 375 16 39 160 185 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 Lane UNI, Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1,00 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1A0 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 0.88 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prof) 1617 1474 1471 1623 1685 1621 1549 1406 Flt Permitted 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Ga'.d. Flow emij 1187 1474 1471 1039 1685 462 1549 1406 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 085 0.85 0.85 085 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 476 20 59 1 15 135 59 441 19 46 188 218 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 64 0 0 1 0 0 0 140 Lane Group Flow(vph) 476 51 0 0 87 0 59 459 0 46 188 78 Con -fl. Pads. (4/hr) 7 25 25 7 3 40 40 3 Confl. Bikes (Mr) 1 1 Heavy VeWes (% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 13% 3% Tum Type Perm NA Pann NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 36.5 36.5 36.5 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 Effective Green, g (s) 36.5 363 36.5 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 Actuated g/C Rata 053 0.53 0.53 0.36 0.36 0.38 0.36 0-36 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension s 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 626 777 775 370 601 164 $52 501 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 cO27 0-12 v/s Ratio Perm c0.40 0. G6 0.06 0.10 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.07 0.11 016 0.76 0.28 034 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 12.9 8.0 8,2 15.2 19.7 15.9 16.3 15.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 5.5 0.7 0.3 0.1 Delay (s) 18.1 8.0 8.3 15.3 25.1 16.6 16.6 15.3 Level of Service B A A B C B B B Approach Delay (s) 16.7 8.3 24.0 15.9 Approach LOS B A C B inteis�tion Sumrha , , HGM 2000 Control Delay 18.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service _ 8 HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69,2 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineenng Page 1 377 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. o7io7izo17 ion-enygt SEL SET SER JNWl_ sVNEi iW[t' - Perm Protected Phases 68.7 4 8 76,1% 6 Analysis Period (min) Lane Con fig urat:ons r, 4 41 6 2 2 ■ wn�wet 00.1 Traffic Volume (vph) 405 17 50 1 13 115 50 975 16 39 160 185 Future Volume (vph) 405 17 50 1 13 115 50 375 16 39 160 185 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 4,0 774 4.0 4.0 603 4.0 4.0 4,0 Lane UtIl. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 vis Ratio Penn 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, pelf Aes 1.00 0.98 0.06 0,98 0.76 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, pedA*es 1.00 1.00 8.0 8.2 1.00 19.5 1.00 1.00 15.0 0.98 1.00 1.00 I'd 1.00 0.89 1.G0 1.00 0.88 Incremental Delay, d2 1.00 0.99 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Proterded 0.95 1.00 18.1 8.0 1.00 15.2 0.95 1.00 16.4 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd, Flow (prot) 1622 1474 C 8 1487 8 1623 1685 16.7 1622 1549 1406 Fit Permitted 0.70 1.00 Approach LOS 1.00 A 0.61 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perms 1191 1487 1041 1665 466 1549 1406 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 _1474 0.85 _ 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 0,85 0.86 0.85 Al. Flow (vph) 476 20 59 1 15 135 59 441 19 46 188 218 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 64 0 0 1 O 0 0 140 Lane Group Flow (vlgr) 476 51 0 0 87 0 59 459 0 46 188 78 Confl. Peds. (#Ihr) 7 25 25 7 3 40 40 3 Conti. &"kes (Mb 1 1 Heavy VshlCks %y 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 1371 3% Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 68.7 4 8 76,1% 6 Analysis Period (min) 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 2 Acivar d Green, G (e) wn�wet 00.1 OU. i 9C4 OJAA `AR 2116 I" it 74A - Effective Green, g (s) 36.1 36.1 36.1 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 Aduded gfC Ratio 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 ClWance Time (8) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extonston (s) 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 25 2.ti 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 625 774 781 372 603 166 564 503 We Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.27 0.12 vis Ratio Penn c0.40 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.07 0.11 0.16 0.76 018 0.34 0.16 Unrform Delay, d1 12.9 8.0 8.2 15.0 19.5 15.7 16.1 15.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.G0 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 5.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 Delay (s) 18.1 8.0 8.3 15.2 24.8 16.4 16.4 15.1 Level of Service B A A B C 8 8 8 Approach Delay (s) 16.7 8.3 23.7 15.8 Approach LOS B A C B Inlar9acDn SUM - HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service 8 HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0,76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.7 Sum of lost Ilme (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76,1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Crltical Lane Group Fellows Annexation I ZC Traffic Analysis Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour, MlOgated Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 1 378 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour 07107/2017 Summary of All Intervals Interval #0 Information Seedir Start Trine 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min) 5 Vatumes adjusted by PHF. Growth Factors. No data recorded this iniervai. Interval #1 Information Recor Start Time 7.15 End Time 7:30 Toth Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Gr,wth F&,lnrs. Run NwnDer 1 2 3 4 _--5, Start Time 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7.10 End Time 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 6:15 Total Time (min) 65 65 65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vohs Entered 2999 2968 2963 2953 2944 2965 Vehs Exited 2988 2984 3000 2955 2980 2982 Starting Vohs 74 83 92 74 83 76 Ending Vohs 85 67 55 72 47 66 Travel Distance (mi) 996 999 991 1002 996 997 Travel Time (hr) 72.6 81.4 87.0 75.9 71A 77.7 Total Delay (hr) 34.3 42.8 48.7 37.4 33.5 39.4 Total Stops 3702 3919 4085 3830 3644 3832 Fuel Used (gal) 44.1 46.3 47.3 45.1 44.1 45.4 Interval #0 Information Seedir Start Trine 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min) 5 Vatumes adjusted by PHF. Growth Factors. No data recorded this iniervai. Interval #1 Information Recor Start Time 7.15 End Time 7:30 Toth Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Gr,wth F&,lnrs. Run NwnDer 1 2 3 4 _--5, Vohs Entored 787 863 772 784 784 797 Vohs Exited 770 822 745 749 770 771 Starting Vohs 74 83 92 74 83 76 End'mg Vohs 91 124 119 109 97 106 Travel Distance (mi) 268 288 257 266 261 268 Travel Time (hr) 20.5 32.0 26.7 22.3 22,2 24.8 Total Delay (hr) 10.2 20.8 18,8 12.1 12.2 14.4 Total Slope 1053 1348 1192 1121 1088 1162 Fuel Used (gal) 12.1 15.3 13.3 12.5 12.4 13.1 Fellows Annexation 1 ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 379 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Desian Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour 07/0712017 Interval #2 Information Recordin start Tune 7:30 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Ano PHF Run-Vumbei 1 2 - --3 4 - 4,.:LL_ Avg - . Vehs entered 2212 7105 2191 2159 2160 2170 Vohs Exited 2218 2162 2255 2206 2210 2209 Starling Vehs 91 124 119 109 97 106 Endmg Vohs 85 67 55 72 47 66 Tr&M Dstance (m3) 728 711 734 737 735 729 Tram rime (W) 52,1 49.5 69.2 53.6 49-6 53.0 Total Delay (hr) 24.1 22.0 319 25.3 21.4 24.9 Total slops 2549 2571 2893 2709 25% 2660 Fuel used (gal) 32.0 .31 1 33.9 32.6 31.8 32.3 Fellows Annexation J ZC Traffic An*sis Southem Oregon Transportation Engineering 380 SimTrafflc Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year 2018 Build. AM Peak Hour V/07/2017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Movemem SE SE 14VV NE NE W R M Directions Served L TR LTR L TR , L T _ R mwdmum Queue (ft) 517 118 165 199 815 147 255 117 Average Queue(ft) 220 21 55 56 333 38 90 54 95M Queue (1) 484 72 114 163 806 94 189 94 Link Distance (ft) 1332 1332 386 929 276 276 Upstream Sk Time (%) 4 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 Slorage Bey Dist (tt) 100 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 37 1 7 Queuing Penally (veh) 5 19 2 3 Zone Summary Zone W'de Queuing Pena'ly: 29 Fellows Annexation / ZC Trallfc Analysts Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 381 SknTraftic Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 0710712017 Summary of All Intervals �ElRtmber 1 _ +1110 Stmt Time 710 615 7:10 7:10 7:10 710 End Time 8:15 6:16 8:15 8.15 8:15 8:15 Total Time (min) 65 65 65 65 65 65 Tete Recorded (min) 60 60 60 8tl 6o 60 # of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Rworded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Veils EnWed 2918 29A 2953 2978 2582 2960 Vehs Extted 2936 2990 2968 298i 2982 2972 sU;rting Vehs 61 74 67 61 66 60 Ending V a 43 62 51 58 66 53 Travel Distance (miij 918 987 978 957 9% 985 Travel Time (hr) 58.7 60.4 60.7 60A 614 602 Total Delay (ltt) 21.0 22.5 23.2 22.4 22,6 22.4 Total Steps 30M 3138 3094 3160 3243 3139 Fuel Used (gal) 40.4 41.2 40.9 41.3 41.4 41.0 Interval #0 Information Seedin Sr'art Tyne 7:10 End Torre 7:15 ToW Time (min) 5 Vdumes ad( wW by PHF. Growlh Factors. No data recarded 1his interval. Interval 01 Information Record Sbd Tone 7:15 End Turco 7:30 Tatai Time (thin) 15 Volumes sdiyrsted by PHF, Growth Fac:to+s. - f Vehs Entered 792 615 839 810 810 817 Vela FAted 772 825 830 809 611 809 Starting Vehs 61 74 67 61 66 60 Enr5ng Vehs 81 64 76 62 85 69 Travel distance (mi) 272 277 289 279 276 279 Travel Tim (hrj 17.9 18.2 19.7 18.1 18.0 18A Total Celay (hr) 7.4 7,6 8.5 7.3 7.2 7.6 Total Stops 948 966 994 923 955 956 Fuel Used (gal) 11,6 11.9 12.5 11.9 11.7 11.9 Fellows Annexatbn I ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 382 SlmTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour. Mitigated 007/2017 Interval 02 Information Recording Start rune 7:30 End rine 8:15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, And PHF n. Nember., 1 2 3 4 5 A Vebs Entered 2125 2163 2114 2166 2372 2151 Vehs Exited 2184 2165 2139 2172 217; 2163 Startlng Vehs 81 64 76 62 65 69 Ending Vehs 43 62 51 58 66 53 Travel Distance (mrj 706 710 689 708 717 706 Travel Tiirm (hr) 40.8 42,2 41.0 42.3 430 41.9 Total Delay (hr) 13.6 14.9 14,7 15.1 15.4 14.7 TOW Stop$ 2110 2172 2100 27.87 2288 2184 Fuel Used (gal) 28.8 29.2 28.4 29.4 29.7 29.1 Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 383 SimTraffic Report Page 2 City of Central Point Traosporladon System Pian, 2008-2030 CENTRAL POINT ..... 1rre����sti .I IL •�S ��}"'� $ RRA�'%A� � �• �x��aa.rarraaa��a.ar�V urrarH � ! -- � ''�•.� X44 Legend ;:::tg Can Area Prmrigr41.ansr31 Cdlestor Public Parks A" h9mcniodal Connector ... Futime C,hector Railroad � Minor Arterial -- Locat • • • Future Minor Arterial — - - Figum 7.1 Functional Clam fication & Street Network Map 2008-2030 CHAPTER 7 - STREET SYSTEM PIAN Page 64 of 161 384 Central Point Transit Oriented Development EF 385 Page I of L RVMFO Travel DemiuLd Model 1. 49 .0. 0 A Scenario 150 (2020 Committed With UpdMad P&A) 1-02-0 386 prilae-d all 7/31/00 rw Pag,3 I of I RVNIPO Trsvel Demand klo-dof Prinued on 7/31 100 Scanario 150 (2020 Committed with Updated P&A) ho - 6 v,('(A �" 387 jw Sh 47 0i P r Scanario 150 (2020 Committed with Updated P&A) ho - 6 v,('(A �" 387 Page I of] RVIAPO Travel 1).n)and Modal Printed on 7133/00 1 40- Smindo 530 (2020 Detailed Network) 20-20 &,� I r— At -1 388 pa$o 1 of I RV WO Toyal DtwjmW Model Prkaed on 7/31/00 Smwio 350 (2020 DftUod NWsmk) ?.4'2.07 ata 1 .4 r-" 389 ATTACHMENT "G" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 845 A RESOLUTION FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CLARIFICATION OF 3428 AND 3470 CHICORY LANE TO TOD CORRIDOR Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC; Agent: CSA Planning, Ltd. (37S 2W 11C, Tax Lots 8300 & 8400) File No. CPA -17002 WHEREAS, the Central Point Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates 3428 and 3470 Chicory Lane as TOD Corridor, and the current TOD-MMRIR-3 zoning designation and the proposed TOD-LMRlR-2 zoning designation are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding uses; and WHEREAS, the proposed Comprehensive Pian Amendment will provide clarification of the Property's land use designation upon annexation in the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's consideration of the application is based on the standards and criteria applicable to Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendments per Section 17.96.500, and the €iiading3 of fact and conclu3ion3 of law incorporated herein (Exhibit 'W'), and WHEREAS, adequate public services and transportation networks are available to the site, and are consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals and Transportation Planning, Rule; and WHEREAS, on September 5, 2017, the Central Point Planning Commission opened a duly -noticed public hearing on the Application, at which time the Plawing Commission heard testimony and comments on the Comprehensive Plant Amendment application, as specifically identified in Exhibit CW NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by this Resolution No. 843, does hereby recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth in Exhibit "A, and attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein; and PASSED by the Planning Comutission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 5th day of September, 2017. ATTEST: City Representative Approved this day of September, 2017. Planning Commission Resolution No. 838 Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Chair 390